Legal Opinion
Martin v. George Hyman Construction Co.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 1978No. 12356PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
Appellant 1 asserts that the trial judge erred in directing a jury verdict for appellee (hereinafter, Hyman) 2 at the close of appellant’s evidence upon a negligence action. We agree, and thus we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Appellant introduced evidence from which the jury could have found the following circumstances. Appellant was an iron-worker employed by a subcontractor of Hy-man, the general contractor on a building under construction during the period relevant to this case. A steel staircase had been put into place between the ground level floor, which…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. EnoOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Schultz v. Henry Ericsson Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1914
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Morrison v. MacNamaraDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Toy v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- District of Columbia v. ColemanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Ceco Corp. v. ColemanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- District of Columbia v. PetersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.