Standard Oil Co. v. Cates

• Decision Date: 16 October 1928
• Docket Number: No. 2749.,2749.
• Parties: STANDARD OIL CO. v. CATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

28 F.2d 718 (1928)

STANDARD OIL CO. v. CATES.^*

No. 2749.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

October 16, 1928.

C. W. Tillett, of Charlotte, N. C. (Tillett, Tillett & Kennedy, of Charlotte, N. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas C. Carter, of Mebane, N. C., and L. P. McLendon, of Durham, N. C. (H. G. Hedrick and J. E. Long, both of Durham, N. C., and L. C. Allen, of Graham, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WADDILL and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and SOPER, District Judge.

NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge.

This is an action brought against the Standard Oil Company, a corporation, by S. H. Cates, Sr., father of S. H. Cates, Jr., a boy 4 years old, who was killed in a collision between a truck owned by the oil company and a Nash sedan automobile driven by one M. J. Curley, in which Nash automobile the child was, with others, a passenger. The accident occurred in Burlington, N. C., and the action was brought by Cates, Sr., as administrator. The trial was had in the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The jury answered the issues submitted to them as follows:

(1) Was the plaintiff's intestate injured and killed by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Ans. Yes.

(2) What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Ans. $7,500.

Upon this verdict of the jury the trial court entered judgment against the defendant oil company for the sum of $7,500 from which action of the court this appeal was taken.

It is urged on behalf of the appellant, who was the defendant below, and who will be referred to here as the defendant, that the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant. The rule in the federal courts on this question is well settled and was discussed by this court in Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co., 20 F.(2d) 71:

"When the evidence given at the trial, with all inferences that the jury could justifiably draw from it, is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, so that such a verdict, if returned, must be set aside, the court is not bound to submit the case to the jury but may direct a verdict for the defendant." Delk v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 220 U. S. 587, 31 S. Ct. 620, 55 L. Ed. 590.

Applying this rule, it is clear that there was ample evidence in the present case to justify its submission to the jury, and which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to justify the jury's finding.

It is strongly contended on behalf of the defendant that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a statement made by Curley, the driver of the Nash car, the next day after the accident. It is admitted that this evidence is properly admissible under the ruling of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, but it is argued that the rule in the federal court is different, and that the federal courts are not governed by the state rule on questions of the admissibility of evidence. This question was thoroughly discussed by this court in the case of Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Luray Supply Co., 6 F.(2d) 218, where Judge Waddill said:

"The fact that this court is bound by and should follow the decisions of...