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
Royal Motors, Inc., Appellant v. Elbert W. Murray et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 275 F.2d 3
Argued Jan. 18, 1960.Decided Feb. 4, 1960
Mr. J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. H. Mason Welch, J. Harry Welch, Arthur V. Butler, Walter J. Murphy, Jr., and James A. Welch, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Edward C. Donahue, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. J. Lawrence Hall, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before BAZELON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Murray was injured when his car was struck by another automobile. The accident was caused by a defective braking system in the other car. Appellees instituted this action against (1) the owner and driver, (2) the seller-repairer, and (3) the manufacturer. Only the seller-repairer was found to be negligent. It appeals, claiming that it is inherently incredible that the car, a taxicab, could be operated for two weeks and 1200 miles after the last repair if the braking system were defective in the manner charged. The negligence alleged is the installation of an under-sized rubber cup in one of the brake cylinders, resulting in a defective seal. Although there are many conflicts in the record, there is competent testimony from which the jury could find: (1) that, despite the defective part, the brakes would operate when installed and lose their effectiveness only gradually thereafter, and (2) that appellant's mechanic was negligent in failing to observe that the cup did not fit properly. Accordingly we find that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury.
Affirmed.