SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY v. Toomey, 17736.
Decision Date | 06 February 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 17736.,17736. |
Citation | 329 F.2d 881,117 US App. DC 313 |
Parties | SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. James C. TOOMEY and John J. Toomey, Trustees, under the Will of Ellen C. Toomey, deceased, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John P. Arness, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before DANAHER, BURGER and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.
On June 12, 1958 about 10:30 P.M., a lady was seriously injured when she fell into a stairwell, immediately adjacent to a public alley. The stairwell led from the alley to the basement of a building which was used in part as the office portion of a gasoline station selling Sinclair products. The premises had been leased by the appellees, James C. and John J. Toomey as trustees, to the appellant, Sinclair Refining Company, which in turn had sublet the premises to one Muldrow. According to a pretrial order, the latter claimed that the conditions existing at the stairwell at the time of the injury were "exactly and precisely the same as" when Muldrow took over occupancy of the premises under his lease from Sinclair.
The case went to trial upon the claim of the injured plaintiff against Sinclair, the Toomeys and Muldrow, and the jury returned a verdict in her favor.1 Sinclair had cross-claimed against the Toomeys seeking indemnity, or in the alternative, contribution from the Toomeys. The latter had cross-claimed against Sinclair seeking indemnity on the contention that Sinclair was obliged to make all repairs to the premises and was in full control thereof. Alternatively, the Toomeys sought contribution.
The trial judge found that at all times pertinent the dangerous condition complained of had been obvious and known to all of the defendants, and concluded that each was entitled to contribution from both of the other respective co-defendants as joint tortfeasors. In his opinion the trial judge said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muldrow v. Daly
...answerable with the others for the damages awarded to the appellee. See our opinion in No. 17736 — Sinclair Refining Company v. Toomey, et al., 117 U.S.App.D.C. —, 329 F.2d 881 (decided February 6, 1964). 5 Restatement, Torts § 367 (1934) which reads: "A possessor of land who so maintains a......
- Hyde v. Tobriner