Case Name: Rita ARSHT, Plaintiff, v. Clarence HATTON, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Norman BUNIN, Third-Party Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-01-06
Citations: 172 F.2d 220
Docket Number: No. 9689
Parties: Rita ARSHT, Plaintiff, v. Clarence HATTON, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Norman BUNIN, Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
Rita ARSHT, Plaintiff, v. Clarence HATTON, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Norman BUNIN, Third-Party Defendant.
No. 9689.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 22, 1948.
Decided Jan. 6, 1949.
See also, D. C., 80 F.Supp. 148.
Tood Daniel, of Philadelphia, for appellant.
S. Samuel Arsht, of Wilmington, Del. (Alexander L. Nichols and Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, all of Wilmington, Del., and Louis H. Wilderman and Melvin A. Bank, both of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The questions presented by the appeal at bar'are so clearly those of fact that it is unnecessary to write an extended opinion in the instant case. There was ample evidence in the record from which the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent. We can perceive no sound basis for concluding that the trial judge erred in permitting evidence to go to the jury as to the position of the debris and of the cars after the collision. The evidence submitted as to the condition of the highway also was clearly admissible. We state as well that we can find no substantial error in the court's instructions to the jury.
Accordingly the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.