William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. v. Lewis James Springer

Fifth Circuit

William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. v. Lewis James Springer

338 F.2d 70

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1964

Docket21337

StatusPublished

This text of 338 F.2d 70 (William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. v. Lewis James Springer) 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

William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. v. Lewis James Springer, 338 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for personal injuries to the appellee, Springer, a pedestrian, who was struck by a truck operated by an agent of the appellant, William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. As the appellant’s truck was being backed into a parallel parking position, it struck another parked vehicle and propelled it into the appellee who was standing in front of a third parked vehicle, causing substantial and painful injuries. Thirty special issues were submitted to the jury.

The appellant complains chiefly of the instructions by the Court, the submission of the special issues, and the answers of the jury, all of which resulted in a verdict and judgment against it. We have carefully considered the record, briefs, and all of the contentions of the parties. We fail to find error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for personal injuries to the appellee, Springer, a pedestrian, who was struck by a truck operated by an agent of the appellant, William A. Smith Contracting Company, Inc. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. As the appellant’s truck was being backed into a parallel parking position, it struck another parked vehicle and propelled it into the appellee who was standing in front of a third parked vehicle, causing substantial and painful injuries. Thirty special issues were submitted to the jury.

The appellant complains chiefly of the instructions by the Court, the submission of the special issues, and the answers of the jury, all of which resulted in a verdict and judgment against it. We have carefully considered the record, briefs, and all of the contentions of the parties. We fail to find error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-a-smith-contracting-company-inc-v-lewis-james-springer-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack