Moore v. Clagett
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hjeartng on an appeal bv tlie defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in an action of negligence. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appellee, Curtis Clagett, plaintiff below, brought this action to recover damages for injuries received through the breaking of a seat in appellant’s (Tom Moore), moving picture theater. From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Hjeartng on an appeal bv tlie defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in an action of negligence. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: Appellee, Curtis Clagett, plaintiff below, brought this action to recover damages for injuries received through the breaking of a seat in appellant’s (Tom Moore), moving picture theater. From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. The declaration contains no general charge of negligence, but negligence is specifically charged in that “the said defendant had theretofore prepared a…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Van Orsdel
The total failure to prove the specific charge of negligence is conceded, but it is sought to sustain the judgment by invoking the rule of res ipsa loquitur. Undoubtedly, under a proper declaration, the rule may be invoked in a case of this sort, and the proof here adduced was sufficient to raise the necessary presunción of negligence. But the variance between the charge *415and tlie proof forbids its application here. The rule of res ipsa loquitur arises in a case where the accident is such that, in the. ordinary course of events, it would not have happened except through the negligence of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Roscoe v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Pierce v. Great Falls & Canada Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1899
- Highland Avenue & Belt Railroad v. SouthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Chicago Union Traction Co. v. LeonardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hohenthal v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- Fisher v. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
- Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Standard Meat Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- Quinn v. Swift & Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
- China Doll Restaurant, Inc. v. MacDonaldDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.