Terrell E. Meek and Walter Bledsoe & Company v. Mamie Ballenger Harris, as of the Estate of Kline E. Harris

Fourth Circuit

Terrell E. Meek and Walter Bledsoe & Company v. Mamie Ballenger Harris, as of the Estate of Kline E. Harris

256 F.2d 579, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4383

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1958

Docket7648_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 F.2d 579 (Terrell E. Meek and Walter Bledsoe & Company v. Mamie Ballenger Harris, as of the Estate of Kline E. Harris) 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

Terrell E. Meek and Walter Bledsoe & Company v. Mamie Ballenger Harris, as of the Estate of Kline E. Harris, 256 F.2d 579, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4383 (4th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, against whom judgment was recovered in d suit for negligent operation of an automobile, causing the death of the plaintiff’s decedent, a *580 passenger in that automobile, bring this appeal from the District Judge’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendants and from his denial of a motion for judgment for them n. o. v. The sole question is whether there was sufficient evidence of recklessness or heedlessness in the operation of the automobile to satisfy the requirements of the South Carolina guest statute. Code 1952, § 2-21.

There was testimony from which the jury could conclude that, at the time of the fatal accident, the defendants’ automobile was being operated at a speed of seventy to seventy-five miles per hour and on the wrong side of the road. While this testimony was sharply contradicted by other witnesses, the issue of credibility was for the jury.

. It would have been error for the Judge to grant the motions. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, against whom judgment was recovered in d suit for negligent operation of an automobile, causing the death of the plaintiff’s decedent, a *580 passenger in that automobile, bring this appeal from the District Judge’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendants and from his denial of a motion for judgment for them n. o. v. The sole question is whether there was sufficient evidence of recklessness or heedlessness in the operation of the automobile to satisfy the requirements of the South Carolina guest statute. Code 1952, § 2-21.

There was testimony from which the jury could conclude that, at the time of the fatal accident, the defendants’ automobile was being operated at a speed of seventy to seventy-five miles per hour and on the wrong side of the road. While this testimony was sharply contradicted by other witnesses, the issue of credibility was for the jury.

. It would have been error for the Judge to grant the motions. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 F.2d 579, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrell-e-meek-and-walter-bledsoe-company-v-mamie-ballenger-harris-as-ca4-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack