Paul John Schack v. Preston Trucking Company, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Paul John Schack v. Preston Trucking Company, Inc.

321 F.2d 78, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1963

Docket8922

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F.2d 78 (Paul John Schack v. Preston Trucking Company, Inc.) 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

Paul John Schack v. Preston Trucking Company, Inc., 321 F.2d 78, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769 (4th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered against it upon a verdict of a jury. The controversy arose out of an automobile accident which occurred upon a straight, dry highway in the daytime. The essential factual question is whether the defendant’s vehicle swerved across the center line of the highway into the path of the plaintiff’s oncoming automobile, or whether it was the plaintiff who crossed the center line of the highway into the path of the defendant’s vehicle.

On the essential factual dispute, there was conflicting testimony. The defendant contends, however, that the physical facts belie the plaintiff’s version of the occurrence. He refers to certain skid marks on the highway, gouge marks, and the location of debris. There was no certainty in the testimony that the skid marks observed on the highway were made by the vehicles involved in the collision, however, and the testimony of the location of the debris and gouge *79 marks and the inferences to be drawn from it are inconclusive. Under the circumstances, the District Judge properly concluded that the issue was one for the jury.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered against it upon a verdict of a jury. The controversy arose out of an automobile accident which occurred upon a straight, dry highway in the daytime. The essential factual question is whether the defendant’s vehicle swerved across the center line of the highway into the path of the plaintiff’s oncoming automobile, or whether it was the plaintiff who crossed the center line of the highway into the path of the defendant’s vehicle.

On the essential factual dispute, there was conflicting testimony. The defendant contends, however, that the physical facts belie the plaintiff’s version of the occurrence. He refers to certain skid marks on the highway, gouge marks, and the location of debris. There was no certainty in the testimony that the skid marks observed on the highway were made by the vehicles involved in the collision, however, and the testimony of the location of the debris and gouge *79 marks and the inferences to be drawn from it are inconclusive. Under the circumstances, the District Judge properly concluded that the issue was one for the jury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F.2d 78, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-john-schack-v-preston-trucking-company-inc-ca4-1963.