Lyon v. Carey
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
533 F.2d 649 (1976)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Irene Lyon purchased a mattress and springs from George’s Radio and Television Company, Inc. (George’s) (defendant). Irene’s sister, Corene Lyon (Lyon) (plaintiff) agreed to wait in Irene’s apartment for the delivery. A balance was due, and Irene asked Lyon to check the merchandise before remitting the check for the balance. George’s had contracted with Pep Line Trucking Company, Inc. (Pep Line) (defendant) to make deliveries. Michael Carey (defendant) worked for Pep Line as a delivery person and was assigned to deliver the merchandise to Irene’s apartment. Lyon let Carey in after Carey displayed the George’s delivery receipt. Carey and Lyon argued about delivering the merchandise upstairs so Lyon could check it before payment and about Carey’s instruction from his boss that he only accept cash. Carey told Lyon that if she did not give him cash, he was going to take it out of her ass. Carey then raped Lyon at knifepoint and cut her face and body. Lyon sued Carey, George’s, and Pep Line. Carey pleaded guilty to rape, was sentenced to prison, and was never served with process. The jury found against George’s and Pep Line. The trial court set aside the verdict and rendered judgment for Pep Line and George’s. Lyon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McMillan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
