Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

239 F.2d 67

Docket No. 13334.

MacMaugh v. Baldwin

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Nov. 9, 1956.

Decided Nov. 23, 1956.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-11-23

2 counsel of record

Relies on State of Indiana Ex Rel. Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Oscar Ewing, Administrator Federal Security Administration · Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-11-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Gager v. Bob Seidel (1962), Logsdon v. Baker (1975)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

12019561960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*68Mr. George Herbert Goodrich, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Mr. John P. Arness, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George D. Horning, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before PRETTYMAN, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit 'Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant’s decedent died as the result of a fall on the stairs of appellee’s summer cottage at Epping Forest, Maryland. At the pre-trial of the case, appellee moved to dismiss the complaint when it was stated by appellant’s counsel that substantially all the evidence available as to liability was that set forth in the deposition of appellant, including the photographic exhibits. This testimony was simply to the effect that decedent had! started down the stairs; that, although she did not see him on the stairs, appellant heard the decedent fall when he was near the bottom of the stairs. The cause of the fall was not testified to.1

¶6Appellee urges several grounds for af-firmance, among them that the decedent was a social guest and, by that reason, a gratuitous licensee and thus no liability was imposed on appellee for ordinary negligence; that the cause is barred by the statute of limitations; and that there was no evidence of any negligence which caused the injury from which decedent allegedly died.

¶7Without passing on the question of the relationship of the parties or the statute of limitations, we dispose of the case on the ground that there was no showing of any negligence. As we said in Reece v. Capital Transit Co., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 230 F.2d 824:

“The evidence left the cause of Mrs. Reece’s fall so uncertain that the jury should not have been permitted to speculate that her injuries were attributable to the appellee’s negligence."

¶8Here the cause of the fall was uncertain, and the court quite properly declined to permit the jury to speculate that the fall was attributable to appellee’s negligence.

¶9Affirmed.

/239/f2d/67 · .json · Public domain