Yellow Cab Co. of DC v. Janson, 10318.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 10318.,10318. |
| Citation | 86 US App. DC 38,179 F.2d 54 |
| Parties | YELLOW CAB CO. OF D. C., Inc. v. JANSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Alfred M. Schwartz, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Samuel A. Friedman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. William H. Clarke and William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee William N. Janson. Mr. Wesley E. McDonald, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee William N. Janson.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Anna Janson and her husband were passengers in an automobile owned and operated by William Janson when it collided with a taxicab of the Yellow Cab Company. The Janson car was damaged and Anna Janson was injured. William Janson sued the Cab Company and recovered for the damage to his car. The Cab Company pleaded but failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of William Janson.
Anna Janson and her husband afterwards sued the Cab Company for her injuries. As defendant in their suit, the Company served the present "third-party" complaint on William Janson. This complaint asserts that the collision was caused by William Janson's negligence, and that if it should prove to have been caused by the negligence of both William Janson and the Company, the Company would be entitled to recover from him half of what it might be compelled to pay to Anna Janson. William Janson answered and moved for summary judgment on the ground of res judicata. The District Court granted this motion and the Company appeals.
We think the court was clearly right. The Company is attempting to litigate again with William Janson an issue that was adjudicated in the former suit between them. William Janson's recovery against the Company in that suit determined, as between them, not only that the Company's negligence caused the collision but also that no negligence of William Janson contributed to it. If this question of his negligence had not been litigated between him and the Company, the Company could litigate it in the present suit and, if it were decided against him, could collect from him one-half of what it might be compelled to pay to Anna Janson. George's Radio, Inc., v. Capital Transit Co., 75 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 126 F.2d 219; Knell v. Feltman, 85 U.S. App.D.C. ___, 174 F.2d 662; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 14(a), 28 U.S.C.A. But since it has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miraglia v. Miraglia
...right of contribution were demonstrated. National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co. v. Fisher, 284 F.2d 421 (8 Cir. 1960); Yellow Cab Co. of D.C. v. Janson, Supra; Sisk v. Perkins, 264 N.C. 43, 140 S.E.2d 753 Nor do we deem it significant that such a result may seem to permit an inconsisten......
-
Hellenic Lines v. The Exmouth
...against both defendants. Employers Liability Ins. Co. v. Post & McCord, 286 N.Y. 254, 36 N.E. 2d 135 and Yellow Cab Co. of D. C. v. Janson, 1949, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 179 F.2d 54, do not provide precedent for the cross-libelant's argument that the joint Rivera judgment prevents further litig......
-
Radmacher v. Cardinal
...unrelated to the collision. The same result was reached in Stansel v. McIntyre, 237 N.C. 148, 74 S.E.2d 345; Yellow Cab Co. v. Janson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 179 F.2d 54; Sullivan v. Gist (E.D.Pa.) 159 F.Supp. Since it would be prejudicial error to bring to the jury's attention that part of th......
-
Henry Fuel Company v. Whitebread
...Columbia, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 187 F.2d 204. 17 See Sears Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, supra note 9. 18 Cf. Yellow Cab Co. of D. C. v. Janson, 1949, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 179 F.2d 54; Capital Transit Co. v. District of Columbia, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 199, 225 F.2d 19 Knell v. Feltman, supra no......