Webster v. M. Loeb Corp., 13020.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 13020.,13020. |
| Citation | 400 A.2d 319 |
| Parties | Vita B. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. M. LOEB CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Herbert Lipsitz and Martin Mendelsohn, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellant.
David F. Grimaldi, Richard W. Galiher, William H. Clarke, Frank J. Martell and William J. Donnelly, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee.
Before KELLY and KERN, Associate Judges, and PAIR, Associate Judge, Retired.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee notwithstanding the jury's verdict for appellant in the amount of $6,000. Appellant filed her complaint for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a customer in appellee's store when "an employee of the defendant [appellee] while driving a motorized truck therein, negligently and carelessly operated said vehicle causing it to run over the foot of plaintiff [appellant]."
The trial court in its post-verdict Memorandum and Order, correctly stated that the judgment n. o. v. "shall be awarded only when, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict, no juror could reasonably reach a verdict for the opponent of the motion." The trial court, concluding there was sufficient evidence of appellee's negligence, went on to identify "the only issue which remains to be decided [as] whether or not the evidence presented concerning the possible contributory negligence of the plaintiff [appellant] was such that no juror could reasonably have reached a verdict for the plaintiff."
The transcript reflects that appellant testified she entered a small refrigerated room maintained by appellee for shoppers to purchase dairy products from its shelves. An employee of appellee driving a fork lift truck entered the same room and deposited on the shelves groceries it was carrying. Appellant's direct testimony as to what next occurred was:
Q. As the fork lift entered the refrigerated room, what did you do?
A. When I saw the fork lift entering, I had just deposited some groceries on my cart. I saw it entering; so I stood behind where my cart was, right over there (indicating), and waited for him to enter and deposit his wares.
Q. And what did you observe him do? A. He deposited his wares, and then he — I observed him backing the fork lift back toward the entrance.
A. Well, I saw him backing out, and I looked and saw that the prongs or forks, I guess is the proper term, were clear of the area right in front of me, and I stepped out and went across the aisle to pick up some butter or margarine which was the next item on my list. But before I got my wares, I was struck by the truck. . . .
Appellant's cross-examination, produced the following testimony:
Q. And my question to you at this time is after this fork lift truck had gone by you, did you at that time, before you made your move to go across the room, make any effort to look to see where the fork lift truck was?
A. Yes; I did.
Q. And tell us, if you would, what you did in that regard.
A. Well, I was standing on the side. My work was obstructed by the fact that the fork lift was in there doing its business. So I waited on the side while he deposited his wares and backed toward the entrance going out of the refrigerated room; and I looked to make sure he had completely cleared the area that I had to enter in order to continue my shopping.
* * * * * *
Q. You assumed the truck was leaving the room; is that correct?
A. Yes; he was going toward the entrance.
Q. Now, when you made that assumption, was your back to the aisle; in other words, when this fork lift went by you, did it go by your back?
A. No; I was facing it. I was looking at it.
Q. And as you were facing it, was it going from your right to your left or your left to your right?
A. It was going from my right to my left.
Q. And it passed you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look to your left before you stepped into the aisle?
A. Before I stepped into the aisle, I looked to make sure the area straight ahead of me was clear.
* * * * * *
Q. Going back to my original question, before you stepped into the aisle, did you look to your left to see whether this truck had indeed gone out of the room or whether it was coming towards you?
A. I looked and saw the truck was going out towards the entrance and that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. United States
...inconsistent statements of a witness are hearsay and not admissible as proof of the matters contained therein.8 Webster v. M. Loeb Corp., D.C.App., 400 A.2d 319, 322 n. 1 (1979); Jefferson v. United States, D.C.App., 328 A.2d 85, 86 n. 6 (1974); United States v. Wright, 160 U.S. App.D.C. 57......
-
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Kelly
...the party who secured the jury verdict, no juror could reasonably reach a verdict for the opponent of the motion." Webster v. M. Loeb Corp., D.C.App., 400 A.2d 319, 320 (1979); see Rich v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 410 A.2d 528, 532 (1979); Smith v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 399......
-
Washington v. Washington Hosp. Center
...a verdict for the opponent of the motion." District of Columbia v. White, 442 A.2d 159, 163 n. 9 (D.C.1982), quoting Webster v. M. Loeb Corp., 400 A.2d 319, 320 (D.C.1979). On appeal from a denial of the motion, our inquiry replicates that of the trial court. See Ceco Corp. v. Coleman, 441 ......
-
District of Columbia v. White
...the party who secured the jury verdict, no juror could reasonably reach a verdict for the opponent of the motion." Webster v. M. Loeb Corp., D.C.App., 400 A.2d 319, 320 (1979); accord, Marcel Hair Goods Corp. v. National Savings & Trust Co., D.C.App., 410 A.2d 1, 5 (1979); Rich v. District ......