Case Name: Roberta Nancy E. BAYNE and William B. Bayne, Appellants, v. Veola Robert RICHARDS and Druid A. Clodfelter, t/a Clodfelter Service, Appellees
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1967-12-27
Citations: 236 A.2d 442
Docket Number: No. 4248
Parties: Roberta Nancy E. BAYNE and William B. Bayne, Appellants, v. Veola Robert RICHARDS and Druid A. Clodfelter, t/a Clodfelter Service, Appellees.
Judges: Before HOOD, Chief Judge, MYERS, Associate Judge, and QUINN, (Associate Judge, Retired).
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
Roberta Nancy E. BAYNE and William B. Bayne, Appellants, v. Veola Robert RICHARDS and Druid A. Clodfelter, t/a Clodfelter Service, Appellees.
No. 4248.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued Nov. 27, 1967.
Decided Dec. 27, 1967.
Charles B. Sullivan, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Cornelius H. Doherty, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, MYERS, Associate Judge, and QUINN, (Associate Judge, Retired).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case was the outgrowth of a two car automobile collision.
The problem to be solved is a narrow one and relates to appellants' claim that the jury's finding of no negligence on the part of appellees was contrary to the weight of the evidence and therefore the trial court erred in not granting a motion for new trial.
We have reviewed the record of the trial below and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding. The verdict of the jury is not, therefore, clearly erroneous and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Bradley v. Prince, D.C. Mun.App., 105 A.2d 253 (1954).
Because of our above holding, appellants other contention also provides no basis for disturbing the verdict.
Affirmed.