Case Name: John MALEY, Appellant, v. Lorraine HAHN, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1962-05-03
Citations: 180 A.2d 512
Docket Number: No. 2947
Parties: John MALEY, Appellant, v. Lorraine HAHN, Appellee.
Judges: Before QUINN, Associate Judge, CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11 — 776(b), and MYERS, Associate Judge of The Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 180
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
John MALEY, Appellant, v. Lorraine HAHN, Appellee.
No. 2947.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued March 26, 1962.
Decided May 3, 1962.
Austin F. Canfield, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Richard W. Galiher and William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Robert L. Ellis, New York City, for ap-pellee.
Before QUINN, Associate Judge, CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11 — 776(b), and MYERS, Associate Judge of The Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
QUINN, Associate Judge.
This appeal involves a collision between two automobiles at a street intersection. Trial by the court without a jury resulted in a finding and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. At oral argument defendant conceded he was negligent but claimed the court erred in not finding plaintiff con-tributorily negligent as a matter of law.
There is no reason for setting forth in minute detail the location of the collision, speed of the vehicles, width of the street, and all the other factors involved in this type of automobile collision which happens with great frequency on the streets of this city. The evidence was such that to reasonable minds more than one conclusion could have been drawn from the testimony as to the existence or nonexistence of the negligence charged, and therefore we hold that the trial court committed no error in failing to find that plaintiff was contributor-ily negligent as a matter of law.
Affirmed.