WALTERS D. NAPOWSA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS EARL LINVILLE, 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.
This case involves a guest passenger suing the driver for injuries sustained when the car went into a ditch after leaving a drive-in theatre. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendant, finding no reversible error.
The jury's verdict for the defendant was proper, as the case presented a question of fact for the jury to resolve.
“We have studied the evidence in this case and the excellent briefs of the parties and conclude that this was purely a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the defendant-appellee, Linville.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the jury's verdict, emphasizing that the case involved factual determinations for the jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's car. After leaving a drive-in theatre, the car crossed a county road and ended up in a ditch, causing…
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 Assumption Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
Walters D. Napowsa, who was plaintiff below, appeals from a jury verdict for the defendant in a guest-passenger personal injury case.
The plaintiff was a passenger m a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Sometime after 11:30 P. M., on March 10, 1963, the plaintiff and defendant entered a drive-in theatre, which had a single driveway about 12S yards in length. This drive-way serves as entrance and exit to the drive-in theatre and intersects with a county road, but does not extend beyond the county road. As the plaintiff and defendant left the theatre, the car crossed the county road and ended up in a ditch, resulting in injury to the plaintiff.
The issues in the case below were gross negligence of the defendant, and assumption *624of risk and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. ■
We have studied the evidence in this case and the excellent briefs of the parties and conclude that this was purely a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the defendant-appellee, Linville.
Finding no reversible error in the record, we affirm the lower court.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, TJ., concur.