Legal Opinion
District of Columbia v. Smith
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided June 2, 1994No. 93-CV-55PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KING, Associate Judge:
In this negligence action, seeking recovery for injuries sustained in a fall apparently caused by a loose water meter cover, the District of Columbia appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We hold the trial court erred in not granting the District’s motion and, therefore, we reverse and remand.
I
On May 1, 1989, Helen P. Smith (“Appel-lee”) fell after stepping on an apparently loose water meter cover, suffering injury to her back and ankle.1 She brought this action against the District of Columbia (“the District”), alleging…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- McCoy v. Quadrangle Development Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. James G. Davis Construction Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- District of Columbia v. CooperDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sherman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Jimenez v. HawkDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- King v. Pagliaro Bros. Stone Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Victoria Johnson v. Washington Gas Light CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- Jimenez v. HawkDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996