Sarah B. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corporation, 439 F.2d 477 (1970)

Citation: Sarah B. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corporation, 439 F.2d 477 (1970)
Parent Document: Sarah B. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corporation, 439 F.2d 477 (1970)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1970-09-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/295292/sarah-b-kline-v-1500-massachuset... ↗

Full Text

1,695 chars

Another deficiency I find in appellant’s case is that she failed to prove the prevailing security standard for similar type apartments in the community at the time. This is another fatal defect in her proof. The panel opinion attempts to gloss over this deficiency by saying that it was caused by appellee’s objections to the evidence and by the impatience of the judge. But the transcript indicates (App.55-62) that the proffered testimony was improper, largely hearsay, based on an insufficient foundation and that appellant’s lawyer, after being helpfully advised by the court as to the proper procedure and the proper type of witnesses to prove such facts purposely waived any right to introduce such evidence when he stated, “I do not think it [the evidence of the practice in the area] is that material to the issue here, Your Honor.” Also, the appellant who was her only witness on the point indicated that she only had personal knowledge of the practices at one other apartment at the time in 1966 when this assault occur*492red, and that was obviously insufficient to prove the necessary standard prevailing in the area. The court also stated, “I will allow the question” as to the practice in the building where appellant was then residing and she so testified as to this single location; but that was obviously insufficient to prove the prevailing standard in the area. So appellant’s case is deficient in this vital respect since the absence of any evidence (or proffer thereof) is not corrected by trying to blame the defendant and the court for not admitting what was obviously improper (hearsay) evidence. A negligence case must still be based on some evidence or proffer thereof.

Other Sections in This Document (253)

Full Text