Willie Washington v. Harvey Earl Schuyler and Speakman Company

Fourth Circuit

Willie Washington v. Harvey Earl Schuyler and Speakman Company

433 F.2d 362

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 1970

Docket14451

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 433 F.2d 362 (Willie Washington v. Harvey Earl Schuyler and Speakman Company) 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

Willie Washington v. Harvey Earl Schuyler and Speakman Company, 433 F.2d 362 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The jury rendered a verdict for defendants in plaintiff’s suit for damages sustained when plaintiff’s vehicle collided with the rear of defendants’ truck while it was either stopped on the right hand side of a three-lane highway or moving slowly to return to a position of being fully on the highway. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district judge’s charge to the jury was erroneous, that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous, and that erroneous evidentiary rulings were made during the course of trial.

We find it unnecessary to consider these contentions; because, as asserted by defendants, we conclude that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, thus barring any recovery by him under Virginia law. See Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Brown, 203 Va. 950, 128 S.E.2d 267 (1962); Hubbard v. Murray, 173 Va. 448, 3 S.E.2d 397 (1939).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The jury rendered a verdict for defendants in plaintiff’s suit for damages sustained when plaintiff’s vehicle collided with the rear of defendants’ truck while it was either stopped on the right hand side of a three-lane highway or moving slowly to return to a position of being fully on the highway. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district judge’s charge to the jury was erroneous, that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous, and that erroneous evidentiary rulings were made during the course of trial.

We find it unnecessary to consider these contentions; because, as asserted by defendants, we conclude that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, thus barring any recovery by him under Virginia law. See Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Brown, 203 Va. 950, 128 S.E.2d 267 (1962); Hubbard v. Murray, 173 Va. 448, 3 S.E.2d 397 (1939).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-washington-v-harvey-earl-schuyler-and-speakman-company-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack