Court Opinion

ID: 9640532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:07:46.598713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.584587
License: Public Domain

*162STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
I concur in the result upon the ground that — as stated by the court — there was evidence from which the jury could have found that the appellee was himself driving the car at the time of the accident. But I think that upon the issue of non-consent by the appellee to the driving of the car by Sims this case cannot be distinguished from Rosenberg v. Murray, 1940, 73 App.D.C. 67, 116 F.2d 552. I think that that case, in holding that, where testimony of an owner that he did not consent to the use of his car by the person driving it at the time of an accident is uncontradicted, there is nothing for the jury, was wrongly decided for the reason that it ignores the proposition that the credibility and dependability of testimony — even uncontradicted (as distinguished from undisputed) testimony — is for the jury. But the rule of Rosenberg v. Murray is now the law in this jurisdiction, and since I can see no material distinction between that case and the instant case on the facts so far as the issue of non-consent is concerned, I am obliged to conclude that in the instant case the trial court properly withheld the issue of non-consent from the jury.