Southern Railway Company v. I. C. Earnhardt, Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Hoover Earnhardt, Deceased

Fourth Circuit

Southern Railway Company v. I. C. Earnhardt, Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Hoover Earnhardt, Deceased

405 F.2d 877, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9451

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1969

Docket12436

StatusPublished

This text of 405 F.2d 877 (Southern Railway Company v. I. C. Earnhardt, Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Hoover Earnhardt, Deceased) 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

Southern Railway Company v. I. C. Earnhardt, Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Hoover Earnhardt, Deceased, 405 F.2d 877, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9451 (4th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an action for the recovery of damages for the death of Plaintiff’s decedent resulting from a collision between a truck operated by the decedent and a southbound freight train of the Defendant at a grade crossing near Jamestown, North Carolina. The truck was approaching the crossing from an easterly direction. Plaintiff alleges that the collision was due to negligence in the operation of the train. Defendant denies negligence and alleges the affirmative defense of contributory negligence on the part of decedent. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds of contributory negligence. There was a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict upon the grounds that the court erred in failing to dismiss the action because of contributory negligence and for alleged error in the court’s instructions. The motion was overruled and judgment entered for the Plaintiff, 281 F.Supp. 585.

An examination of the transcript of the proceedings reveals that the principal factual issue involved was whether appropriate warnings of the approaching *878 train were given. The evidence was in conflict and has been resolved by the jury. A detailed recital of the facts would serve no useful purpose but upon a review of the record we can not say the finding of the jury was not supported by substantial evidence.

The instructions of the District Court read as a whole properly submitted the issues to the jury and we find no error of law.

The action of the District Court affirming the verdict and entering judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an action for the recovery of damages for the death of Plaintiff’s decedent resulting from a collision between a truck operated by the decedent and a southbound freight train of the Defendant at a grade crossing near Jamestown, North Carolina. The truck was approaching the crossing from an easterly direction. Plaintiff alleges that the collision was due to negligence in the operation of the train. Defendant denies negligence and alleges the affirmative defense of contributory negligence on the part of decedent. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds of contributory negligence. There was a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict upon the grounds that the court erred in failing to dismiss the action because of contributory negligence and for alleged error in the court’s instructions. The motion was overruled and judgment entered for the Plaintiff, 281 F.Supp. 585.

An examination of the transcript of the proceedings reveals that the principal factual issue involved was whether appropriate warnings of the approaching *878 train were given. The evidence was in conflict and has been resolved by the jury. A detailed recital of the facts would serve no useful purpose but upon a review of the record we can not say the finding of the jury was not supported by substantial evidence.

The instructions of the District Court read as a whole properly submitted the issues to the jury and we find no error of law.

The action of the District Court affirming the verdict and entering judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.2d 877, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-company-v-i-c-earnhardt-administrator-of-the-estate-of-ca4-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack