Case Name: Jessie G. McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. Ella NEAL and John H. Simms, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-06-13
Citations: 320 F.2d 750
Docket Number: No. 17438
Parties: Jessie G. McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. Ella NEAL and John H. Simms, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 320
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
Jessie G. McKNIGHT, Appellant, v. Ella NEAL and John H. Simms, Appellees.
No. 17438.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 4, 1963.
Decided June 13, 1963.
Mr. William J. Donnelly, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Richard W. Galiher and William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John F. Cooney, Washington, D. C., for appellee Simms.
Messrs. Joseph D. Bulman, Silver Spring, Md., and Sidney M. Goldstein, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee Neal.
Before Bastían, Burger and Weight, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The District Court directed a verdict against appellant whose car had run into the rear of a car owned and driven by the appellee Simms. There was evidence to the effect that Simms had stopped his car in the center of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and was backing up to aid a friend in changing a tire. There was also evidence to the effect that two cars ahead of appellant's car had swerved in order to avoid colliding with the Simms car. There was evidence that appellant may have delayed unduly long in applying brakes to avoid a collision with the Simms ear.
In view of allegations and evidence of negligence of appellee Simms, including violation or violations of Maryland statutes, and the evidence of possible negligence of appellant, the record presents conflicting versions of the events the resolution of which involves passing on credibility of witnesses and reconciling conflicts in the description of events which occurred within a few seconds. These are not issues which may be withdrawn from the jury. Therefore the judgment of the District Court must be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.