No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barbara BRAMMER and David Brammer, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ARROW LINES, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
v.
ARROW LINES, INC., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
13706_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 5, 1970.
Published opinion
C. Robert Schaub, Huntington, W. Va. (Jenkins, Schaub & Fenstermaker, Huntington, W.Va., on brief), for defendant-appellant., Norman E. Rood, Huntington, W.Va. (Robert O. Ellis, Huntington, W.Va., on brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Winter, Craven, Butzner.
Published
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity action, arising from a motor vehicle collision, we think that the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was under applicable law a question solely for the jury. The jury exonerated plaintiff. The district judge’s determination that the deceased truck driver was the agent or servant of the corporate defendant was neither factually erroneous nor legally incorrect. Plaintiffs’ recovery was not excessive. The charge to the jury was not excepted to in the regard complained of now, and contained no manifest error.
Affirmed.