Case Name: SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION (Intercounty Construction Corp.), et al., Appellants, v. Mary E. HANKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-12-19
Citations: 326 F.2d 693
Docket Number: No. 17863
Parties: SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION (Intercounty Construction Corp.), et al., Appellants, v. Mary E. HANKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 326
Pages: 693–693

Head Matter:
SOUTHERN FOUNDATION CORPORATION (Intercounty Construction Corp.), et al., Appellants, v. Mary E. HANKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas A. Hankins, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 17863.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 20, 1963.
Decided Dec. 19, 1963.
Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George U. Cameal, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastían and Wright, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellee [plaintiff], as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Hankins, eleven years of age when he died, sought to recover damages arising out of the boy's death, allegedly caused by the negligence of the District of Columbia and three contractors engaged in work on a construction project. A verdict against appellants [defendants] having been returned by the jury, the trial court was presented with motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reduction of the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, based on the claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, and excessiveness of the verdict. All of these motions were denied by the trial court and this appeal followed.
Examination of the record convinces us that there was no error in any of the respects urged. Being in agreement with the opinion of the trial court in denying the several motions, the judgment of the District Court must be and is
Affirmed.
. Hankins v. Southern Foundation Corp., 216 F.Supp. 554 (1963).