Turek Y. Yellow Cab Co. of D.C., 1934.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 1934.,1934. |
| Citation | 131 A.2d 923 |
| Parties | Marion TUREIK, Appellant, v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF D. C., Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John Idomir, Washington, D. C., with whom Martin R. Martino, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Charles Jay Pilzer, Washington, D. C., with whom Harvey A. Jacobs and Irving Weisblatt, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant sued the Yellow Cab Company for personal injuries sustained due to the alleged negligence of one of its drivers in causing a door of the cab in which she was a passenger to close on her finger. After answer was filed, the cab company took the deposition of appellant and thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the deposition and an affidavit of the driver. The motion was granted and this appeal followed.
Counsel for appellant contend that the parties stipulated "that the door of the taxi-cab was slammed either by appellant or said driver-agent and in no other manner." Appellee denies a stipulation was entered into and the record discloses none. We must confine our review to the record before us and we cannot accept supplementary or contradictory statements in the brief not supported by the record.1
This matter having been eliminated from the case, we are concerned only with whether the court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. The court ruled and counsel for appellant conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application here.
Summary judgment procedure in the trial court is governed by Rule 56 of the Municipal Court Civil Rules and is substantially the same as Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This judgment is authorized "if the pleadings; depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that. the, moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."2
While the complaint alleged negligence in general terms, appellant, disclosed in the deposition that upon arrival at her destination, she opened, the right-hand rear door of the cab and in alighting, the door closed on the index finger of her right hand. At the time, she was carrying a package, her purse, and an umbrella. For purposes of clarification and to determine whether there is a factual basis on the issue of negligence, we quote appellant's testimony from the deposition:
In addition to the deposition, appellee filed an affidavit in which the driver stated that appellant closed the door herself; that he did not close" it, nor did he do anything to cause it to close. Appellant did not file counter affidavits.
The purpose of the summary judgment rule was not to deprive a litigant of his day in court, but to enable the court to expeditiously dispose of cases where no real factual issue is in dispute.3 Confronted with a motion for summary judgment, the court is restricted to a determination as to, whether there is a factual issue to be tried: it may not decide the effect of the tendered evidence or resolve the factual issues. Since pleadings may set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. M & J Corp.
...liability. Summary judgment in negligence cases is rare. 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.-15[.1-0] (1980); see also Turek v. Yellow Cab, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 923 (1957). But where there is no foundation for a reasonable inference of negligence and appellant is entitled to judgment as a ma......
-
Reliable Home Appliances v. District of Columbia
...Court of General Sessions. 6. Blyther v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, D.C.Mun.App., 182 A.2d 892 (1962); Turek v. Yellow Cab Co. of D. C., D.C. Mun.App., 131 A.2d 923 (1957); Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766 ...
-
White v. Luber
...among them Cellini v. Moss, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 232 F.2d 371; Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766; Turek v. Yellow Cab Co., D.C.MunApp., 131 A.2d 923; Smith v. Leventhal, D.C.Mun.App., 97 A.2d 139; Bowles v. Marsh, D.C.Mun.App., 82 A.2d These decisions, like many others, est......
-
Elmira Corporation v. Bulman
...for summary judgment is denied, the ruling establishes that there is an undisposed of fact issue requiring trial. Turek v. Yellow Cab Co. of D. C., D.C. Mun.App., 131 A.2d 923. Such a ruling cannot be said to be a decision on the issue and is interlocutory in character, the proceeding being......