Mildred Kuykendall v. Danny Puckett

Fourth Circuit

Mildred Kuykendall v. Danny Puckett

387 F.2d 949, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4397

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1967

Docket11321

StatusPublished

This text of 387 F.2d 949 (Mildred Kuykendall v. Danny Puckett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mildred Kuykendall v. Danny Puckett, 387 F.2d 949, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4397 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant in this diversity action admitted that his negligence in the operation of an automobile was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the only issue presented to the jury was the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff.

Upon consideration of the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the trial in the District Court was fairly conducted. The testimony of the police officer as to the speed of the defendant’s automobile shortly before impact, though pertinent to a question of liability, was nevertheless also relevant to the issue of damages; and its admission was not erroneous. Furthermore, we find that the summation of plaintiff’s counsel did not exceed permissible bounds.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellant in this diversity action admitted that his negligence in the operation of an automobile was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the only issue presented to the jury was the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff.

Upon consideration of the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the trial in the District Court was fairly conducted. The testimony of the police officer as to the speed of the defendant’s automobile shortly before impact, though pertinent to a question of liability, was nevertheless also relevant to the issue of damages; and its admission was not erroneous. Furthermore, we find that the summation of plaintiff’s counsel did not exceed permissible bounds.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 949, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mildred-kuykendall-v-danny-puckett-ca4-1967.