Evans v. Teche Lines
| Decision Date | 25 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9463.,9463. |
| Citation | 112 F.2d 933 |
| Parties | EVANS et. al. v. TECHE LINES, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas Brady, T. P. Brady, and R. Pearce Phillips, all of Brookhaven, Miss., for appellants.
Hugh V. Wall, of Brookhaven, Miss., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, are the father and mother and five minor brothers and sisters of James C. Evans, who died as the result of a collision between a Ford automobile he was driving and a bus owned and operated by appellee. The suit was brought to recover damages of $50,000. The accident occurred on highway No. 51, about 2 miles south of Bryam, in Hinds County, Mississippi. At that point the highway runs approximately north and south and is straight. It is a double lane paved road with a mark down the centre to divide the lanes. The bus was travelling south and the Ford was travelling north. By the law of Mississippi each vehicle was required to stay in its own lane, which was to the right of the center as to each, the west side for the bus and the east side for the Ford. Code Supp.Miss.1938, § 1439 et seq. The negligence alleged is that the bus was operating at an excessive and dangerous speed of 60 to 65 miles per hour, was defective and just prior to the accident was driving on the east side of the road. The collision occurred on the west side of the road where the bus had the right to be. Evans, his wife, three other persons in the Ford and the driver of the bus were killed. Defendant answered, denying negligence and pleading contributory negligence. At the close of the evidence a verdict was directed in favor of defendant. Appellants assign error to that action of the court; to the refusal to permit them to take a voluntary non-suit; to the exclusion of part of the testimony of one witness, Dr. Moore; and to the refusal to grant a new trial.
Under the law of Mississippi the maximum legal rate of speed at the place where the accident occurred was 55 miles per hour. Code Supp.Miss.1938, § 1434. There was evidence of seven persons who were passengers on the bus and two witnesses who were in another automobile, tending to show that the bus was on its right side of the road prior to and at the time of the collision and that it was not running at a rate of more than 50 miles an hour. Defendant also offered proof tending to show that the bus was comparatively new and was equipped with a governor that prevented it from running at the rate of more than 50 miles an hour.
To show a conflict in the evidence requiring the case to be submitted to the jury, appellants rely on the testimony of a witness, Smith, and the evidence of Dr. Moore, which was excluded. Smith testified, in substance, that he first saw the bus when it crossed a bridge about 200 or 300 yards away. It was going about 40 miles an hour. It picked up speed to get over a rise in the road but he did not testify it was going at a greater rate of speed than 50 miles an hour. He did not see the accident but went to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. v. Mitchell
...Co. v. Toops, 281 U.S. 351, 50 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed. 896; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720." Evans v. Teche Lines, 5 Cir. 1940, 112 F.2d 933, 934. In Texas, it is the duty of a court to direct a verdict, though there is slight testimony, if its probative force is so ......
-
Schwarz v. Folloder
...by granting dismissal at end of trial, after defendant had made motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); cf. Evans v. Teche Lines, 112 F.2d 933, 934 (5th Cir.1940) (decision whether to grant dismissal after defendant has moved for directed verdict is discretionary). See generally 9......
-
Hudson v. Lewis, 13240.
...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Vol. 3, (Discussion of Rule 4); Olsen v. Muskegon Piston Ring, Co., 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 163; Evans v. Teche Lines, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 933; Cleveland v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 722; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Central Trans. Co., 171 U.S. 138, 18 S.Ct. 808, 43 L.......
-
Tidwell v. Ray, W-C-21-61.
...Highway Const. Co. of Ohio v. City of Miami (5 Cir.), 126 F.2d 777 (cert. denied) 317 U.S. 643, 63 S.Ct. 35, 87 L.Ed. 518; Evans v. Teche Lines, (5 Cir.), 112 F.2d 933. In addition to the substance of the evidence heretofore stated it is now well to note that at least two witnesses testifie......