Mrs. Frances Faircloth and Ruel Faircloth v. James Fletcher Hester

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Frances Faircloth and Ruel Faircloth v. James Fletcher Hester

405 F.2d 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1969

Docket26390_1

StatusPublished

This text of 405 F.2d 620 (Mrs. Frances Faircloth and Ruel Faircloth v. James Fletcher Hester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mrs. Frances Faircloth and Ruel Faircloth v. James Fletcher Hester, 405 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a judgment in an automobile collision diversity case raises two questions as to the District Court’s charge to the jury. The first question is whether the evidence warranted submission to the jury of the issue whether the driver of the car in which appellant was riding, Sullivan, was appellant’s agent. If the jury could have found agency, then a verdict premised on imputed negligence and comparative negligence was not out of order. In Warnock v. Elliott, 96 Ga.App. 778, 789, 101 S.E. 2d 591, 599 (1957), the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “If there is any evidence tending to establish the agency, the questions should be submitted to a jury.” The evidence indicates that Sullivan was a friend of appellant’s daughter. He agreed to drive appellant from Chattahoochee, Florida, to Columbus, Georgia, and return. Appellant told Sullivan where to go, when to leave, when to start back, and purchased the gasoline for the trip. This was sufficient evidence for the submission of the agency question to the jury. Cf. Cornett v. McWaters, 101 Ga.App. 120, 122, 112 S.E.2d 797 (1960).

The second question concerns possible confusion or prejudice that might have resulted from the charge as to burden of proof. Our view is that the charge when read as a whole is in no way confusing or prejudicial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a judgment in an automobile collision diversity case raises two questions as to the District Court’s charge to the jury. The first question is whether the evidence warranted submission to the jury of the issue whether the driver of the car in which appellant was riding, Sullivan, was appellant’s agent. If the jury could have found agency, then a verdict premised on imputed negligence and comparative negligence was not out of order. In Warnock v. Elliott, 96 Ga.App. 778, 789, 101 S.E. 2d 591, 599 (1957), the Georgia Court of Appeals said: “If there is any evidence tending to establish the agency, the questions should be submitted to a jury.” The evidence indicates that Sullivan was a friend of appellant’s daughter. He agreed to drive appellant from Chattahoochee, Florida, to Columbus, Georgia, and return. Appellant told Sullivan where to go, when to leave, when to start back, and purchased the gasoline for the trip. This was sufficient evidence for the submission of the agency question to the jury. Cf. Cornett v. McWaters, 101 Ga.App. 120, 122, 112 S.E.2d 797 (1960).

The second question concerns possible confusion or prejudice that might have resulted from the charge as to burden of proof. Our view is that the charge when read as a whole is in no way confusing or prejudicial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-frances-faircloth-and-ruel-faircloth-v-james-fletcher-hester-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack