Case Name: Louis KUZMINSKY, Appellant, v. Leroy WOODARD, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-07-06
Citations: 307 F.2d 195
Docket Number: No. 16496
Parties: Louis KUZMINSKY, Appellant, v. Leroy WOODARD, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 307
Pages: 195–197

Head Matter:
Louis KUZMINSKY, Appellant, v. Leroy WOODARD, Appellee.
No. 16496.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 2, 1962.
Decided July 6, 1962.
Danaher, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Mr. Edward L. Genn, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Jacobi, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Wilbert McInerney, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Mr. John S. McInerney, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Fahy and Dana-her, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this suit for personal injuries the District Court directed a verdict for the defendant after a jury had failed to agree. We think there should be-a new trial.
The plaintiff testified that he was standing in a crosswalk when he was struck by the defendant's car. The defendant testified in effect that the plaintiff stepped off a loading platform and walked against the side of the car. Which version is correct is a typical jury question. If a jury believed the plaintiff's version, it might reasonably conclude that the defendant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. D.C.Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations, Pt. I, § 52(a), 54; Griffith v. Slaybaugh, 58 App.D.C. 237, 239, 29 F.2d 437, 439 (1928); Peck v. United States, 195 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1952); Henkelmann v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Md. 591, 595, 26 A.2d 418, 421 (1942). Other jury questions are whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and if he was, whether the defendant in the exercise of due care should have observed that the plaintiff was oblivious to the car's approach and taken steps which he did not take to avoid the accident. Capital Transit Co. v. Garcia, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 194 F.2d 162 (1952).
Reversed and remanded.