Case Name: McLAUGHLIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-03-26
Citations: 148 F.2d 118
Docket Number: No. 8821
Parties: McLAUGHLIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
Judges: Before GRONER, Chief Justice, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 148
Pages: 118–118

Head Matter:
McLAUGHLIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
No. 8821.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
Argued Feb. 16, 1945.
Decided March 26, 1945.
Mr. Burton A. McGann, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Vernon E. West, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Richmond B. Keech, Corporation Counsel, D. C., and Chester H. Gray, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D. C., both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia.
Mr. H. W. Kelly, of Washington, D. G, with whom Mr. R. E. Lee Goff, of Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellee Capital Transit Company.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment for the defendants, based on a directed verdict, in a suit for personal injuries. Appellant set out to go to a store on Wisconsin Avenue north 'of S Street. The sidewalk on Wisconsin Avenue was, and had been for several weeks, obstructed in the course of the authorized widening of the avenue and relocation of street car tracks. There is no evidence that the obstruction was unnecessary or that it had continued for an unreasonable length of time. There was not, at any time, a sidewalk on the north side of S Street. Appellant, in attempting to cross the unimproved space between the roadway of S Street and the store, slipped and fell because the ground was wet. By walking a short distance further east, she could have reached the store over an unobstructed paved roadway and parking lot. She does not contend that her fall was caused by any obstruction, depression or unusual condition in the space which she elected to use. There, is no evidence of negligence on the part of the appellees.
Affirmed.