MEDINA
v.
ALL AMERICAN BUS LINES, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that circumstantial evidence showing only an accident, without explanation of its cause, is insufficient to prove negligence.
Plaintiff sued for wrongful death, alleging negligent operation of defendant's bus. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant at th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
The suit was for damages for injuries resulting in death. The claim was that plaintiff’s decedent had come to his death as a result of the negligent operation of defendant’s bus. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, a motion for directed verdict was made and granted. Plaintiff is here insisting that, though the evidence was entirely circumstantial, it was sufficient to make an issue for the jury. Appellee insists that the evidence shows no more than that there was an accident, and that under settled law the proof that an accident occurred is not proof that it was negligently caused.1 It insists further that while negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the authorities 2 settle it that the circumstances must be such that an inference of negligence is not purely speculative in its nature.
We agree with appellee’s statement of the law, and a page by page search of the record leaves in no doubt that the evidence showed no more than that a collision occurred, its causes completely unexplained. In this state of the record, a directed verdict for defendant was demanded. The judgment was right. It is affirmed.
Texas & P. R. v. Shoemaker, 98 Tex. 451, 84 S.W. 1049; Webster v. Henwood, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W. 2d 333 ; Lipscomb v. Houston Elec. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 2d 1042.
Texas & N. O. R. v. Warden, 125 Tex. 193, 78 S.W. 2d 164; Doggett v. Peck, 5 Cir., 116 F. 2d 273; Interstate Circuit v. Le Normand, 5 Cir., 100 F. 2d 160; Nash v. Raun, 3 Cir., 149 F. 2d 885.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co., 182 F.2d 172 (9th Cir. 1950)
-
Meadows & Walker Drilling Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 417 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Cie. Des Messageries Maritimes v. Tawes, 205 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1953)
Authorities Cited
- Interstate Cir., Inc. v. LE Normand, 100 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1938)
- Nash v. Raun, 149 F.2d 885 (3d Cir. 1945)
- Doggett v. Peek, 116 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1940)