Task: songer_mootness

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that an issue was moot?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries and property damage caused by a collision between two automobiles. There was evidence that appellant drove his car on the wrong side of the street, went through a stop sign at an intersection, and collided with appellee’s car which had properly entered the intersection. Appellant testified that his brakes suddenly failed to work and had previously worked properly. Therefore, he contends, he was not negligent in failing to stop. But a garage operator who examined his car after the accident “guessed” that the brake hose, which he found to be broken, had been broken by the accident. The evidence fully supports the jury’s inference that the collision was due to appellant’s negligence.
Appellee carried “$50 deductible” insurance against damage to his car. He testified that he “only signed for the $50, and the insurance company, itself, signed for the rest of the [repair] bill.” We assume that “signed for” means “promised to pay.” Appellant contends that appellee should not have been allowed to recover in the present suit the full amount of the damage to his car, because the insurance company was not a party to the suit. But counsel who represented appellee at the trial happened to be counsel for the insurance company also, and stipulated that the insurance company would give appellant a full release. If there was any theoretical error in permitting full recovery, a question on which we express no opinion, it was made harmless by the stipulation. Appellant’s other contentions are likewise without merit
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that an issue was moot?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D