SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION v. Hankins
| Decision Date | 19 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17863.,17863. |
| Citation | 117 US App. DC 150,326 F.2d 693 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION (Intercounty Construction Corp.), et al., Appellants, v. Mary E. HANKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George U. Carneal, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BASTIAN and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Appellee plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Hankins, eleven years of age when he died, sought to recover damages arising out of the boy's death, allegedly caused by the negligence of the District of Columbia and three contractors engaged in work on a construction project. A verdict against appellants defendants having been returned by the jury, the trial court was presented with motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reduction of the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, based on the claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, and excessiveness of the verdict. All of these motions were denied by the trial court and this appeal followed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alston v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...411, 415-16, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934); Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554, 558 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 326 F.2d 693 (1963). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied and the plaintiffs were allowed an opportunity to develop fu......
-
Holland v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...U.S. 943, 84 S.Ct. 348, 11 L.Ed.2d 273 (1963); Hankins v. Southern Transportation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (D.D. C.), aff'd, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 326 F.2d 693 (1963). Quite some time after the doctrine had emerged as an accepted legal theory of recovery, and nine years subsequent to the publ......
-
Foshee v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
... ... Stanley FOSHEE, et al., Appellants ... CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION ... No. 87-7107 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... District of ... United States, 517 F.Supp. 95, 97-98 (D.D.C.1981); Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (D.D.C.1963), aff'd., 326 ... ...
-
Elliott v. Michael James, Inc.
...case can be viewed as speculative, Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554, 558 (D.D.C.1963). We affirmed, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 326 F.2d 693 (1963).As the statute permits, supra note 1, the court is not deprived of control if it be determined that a verdict is contrary to the......