AGUEHOUNDE V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
666 A.2d 443 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Aguehounde (P) appealed a decision granting judgment as a matter of
law based on immunity for District (D) and requested reinstatement of the jury's verdict in
his favor.
FACTS: P was struck by a car driven by Davis after he stepped into the crosswalk. P
testified that as he approached the Fessenden St./Wisconsin Ave. intersection, and when he
was three or four steps from the southeast corner of that intersection, he looked to his
left and did not see any vehicles approaching from the west on Fessenden Street. He further
testified that when he reached the corner he saw that the light facing him was green and
that cars, pointed in a westerly direction, were stopped to his right on Fessenden Street.
He could not recall whether the 'walk' or 'don't walk' sign was on. P acknowledged that he
did not stop at the corner before stepping into the crosswalk. He also stated that he did
not remember looking to his left or seeing Davis's car approach him from that direction as
he stepped into the intersection. Davis testified that the traffic light was still green and
she was traveling approximately 20 miles per hour as she proceeded through the intersection
in her easterly course on Fessenden St. She first noticed P standing on the curb as she
passed through the intersection into the crosswalk. P then took a big step out in front of
her car while it was in the crosswalk. Davis testified that P was looking away from her car
and she never saw him look in her direction. She applied her brakes, but nonetheless struck
P who landed 3-5 feet in front of her car. P sued D alleging that: D failed to follow the
proper engineering standards in setting the length of the 'clearance interval' at the
intersection; this failure caused d to set a clearance interval of too short a duration to
allow cars to clear the intersection and the crosswalks; and consequently, Davis's car was
still in the intersection when P stepped into the crosswalk on a green light. P got the
verdict but the D moved for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the timing of
the light is a discretionary function immune from tort liability, and that P was
contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The judge granted the motion. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment