describing contributory negligence as a matter of law as “the exceptional case”
How later courts described this case
- describing contributory negligence as a matter of law as “the exceptional case”
- the jury decided that the taxi cab owed a duty to ensure the crosswalk was clear before driving through the intersection
- noting that the jury weighs witness credibility and resolves disputes regarding speed and distances
- “It is only in a case where the facts are undisputed and, considering every legitimate inference, only one conclusion may be drawn, that the trial court may rule as a matter of law on ... proximate cause” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BELSON, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I concur in Judge Kern’s dissent. I add my view that the dissent’s correct conclusion that appellee driver was, as a matter of law, not entitled to recover by reason of contributory negligence on her part which proximately caused the collision, would not affect the right of her passengers to recover. Her contributory negligence could not, under the circumstances here, be imputed to her passengers. Peake v. Ramsey, D.C. Mun.App., 43 A.2d 763 (1945).