# Levin v. Green

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 21, 1954 · 106 A.2d 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727311

## Case

- **Full name:** Levin v. Green
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 21, 1954
- **Citations:** 106 A.2d 136; 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 147
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Quinn
- **Judges:** Cayton, Hood, Quinn
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727311

## Opinion text

QUINN, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I agree that it would be error for the trial court to consider the conclusions set forth in the accident report, if it did, in fact, consider them. But it is my opinion that it was harmless error because based on the testimony of the appellant the trial judge had no alternative except to find negligence on his part.
The facts in this case are relatively simple. Appellant was driving south on 9th Street in the lane nearest the center line. As he approached O Street an officer directed all traffic traveling south on 9th Street to come to a halt. On appellant’s right was a cab. The officer then signaled all traffic to turn right on O Street or to travel in a westerly direction. Appellant testified that he made a wide turn and that the cab collided with the right rear fender of his car. On cross-examination he stated that after he received the signal from the officer he did not look to his right at any time while making the turn. This was an emergency situation and, when -the officer directed the appellant to travel west on O Street, appellant knew or should have known that the car standing on his right would also have to make a turn, and therefore there was a duty and responsibility on him to' at least glance in that direction to see what the other driver was doing. The court found that both drivers were negligent and entered a judgment for the defendant. Regardless of the police accident report, there was ample evidence to support the judgment, and I believe that the action of the trial court should be affirmed. As Mr. Justice Jackson recently stated in Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414 , 73 S.Ct. 369, 375 , 97 L.Ed. 447 , “Reversals should not be based on trivial, theoretical and harmless rulings.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727311. Public record. Not legal advice.