WILLIAM ESTEL PRIVETT, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA DIXON, A SINGLE WOMAN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF DEANNA LEE DIXON, APPELLEE
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 the appellant could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal because he did not move for a directed verdict, and his motion for a new trial was properly denied.
Appellant Privett collided with a vehicle driven by the deceased, Sam F. Dixon, while attempting to pass another car. The jury returned a verdict for …
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
While attempting to pass an automobile in front of him, appellant Privett collided with an automobile driven by the minor appellee’s father, Sam F. Dixon, who was approaching from the opposite direction either in its proper lane (as claimed by appellees), or across the middle line of the road in the wrong lane (as claimed by appellant). Judgment of $16,200.00 was entered against Privett upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees for the wrongful death of the minor’s father and Privitt appeals. We affirm.
Not having moved for a directed verdict Privett cannot now challenge, as he attempts to do, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. E. g., Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nathan, 5 Cir. 1966, 361 F. 2d 18, 20.
The evidence on when and how the crash occurred was in sharp conflict and presented a classical jury question. Considering the evidence adduced at trial on the weather, visibility, terrain, road and shoulder width and condition, the respective speeds of the oncoming, the passed and the passing vehicles, the trial court correctly submitted to the jury the questions of whether Privett was operating his automobile at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances and, if so, whether this was a proximate cause of the accident.
Finally, Privett’s motion for a new trial, principally on counsel’s affidavit on information and belief of jury misconduct, was properly denied. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Wayne Broyles Engineering Corporation, 5 Cir. 1965, 351 F. 2d 478; Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States, 5 Cir. 1947, 160 F. 2d 182, cert. denied, 332 U.S. 762, 68 S.Ct. 64, 92 L.Ed. 347; Morgan v. Sun Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1940, 109 F. 2d 178, cert. denied, 310 U.S. 640, 60 S.Ct. 1086, 84 L.Ed. 1408.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States, 160 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1947)
- Morgan v. SUN OIL Co., 109 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1940)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Wayne Broyles Eng'g Corp., 351 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 332 U.S. 762 (U.S. 1947)
- Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 762 (U.S. 1947)
- Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nathan, 361 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Morgan v. Sun Oil Co., 310 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1940)
- Pitcher v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1940)