Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Dorn, v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc. et al
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 180 F.2d 47
Argued Dec. 5, 1949.Decided Feb. 13, 1950
Mr. Josiah Lyman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Thomas S. Jackson, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Louis M. Denit, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an adult of mature years, was injured while riding for pleasure a device called a 'Kiddie Car' down a circular ramp at an amusement park. She sued in the District Court alleging specific acts of negligence in maintaining the car and ramp in defective condition. An allegation of general negligence was added.
At the trial appellant produced all her evidence as to negligence. Whereupon the trial court directed a verdict in defendants' favor for lack of evidence to support the allegations of specific negligence or to justify an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The majority of the court approves the ruling of the trial judge in directing the verdict, although one member of the court thinks the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the allegation as to the defective condition of the ramp.
Other points raised by appellant have been considered, but we find no substantial error by the trial court in those respects. Therefore the judgment is
Affirmed.