Weeda v. District of Columbia

With all respect, I cannot join my colleagues in affirming the judgment. I would reverse on the ground that the evidence relating to Gannon’s intoxication was irrelevant, inadmissible, and so inflammatory as to deprive appellant of a fair trial.

I

In addition to defending against the negligence claim on the merits, the District— over appellant’s objection — attempted to establish that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence because he voluntarily rode as a passenger in John Gannon’s car knowing that Gannon was drunk.1 In his opening statement, counsel for the District alerted the jury…