What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
OLD SOUTH LINES, Inc., v. McCUISTON.
No. 8273.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1937.
A. C. Wheeler and Chas. J. Thurmond, both of Gainesville, Ga., for appellant.
G. Fred Kelley, of Gainesville, Ga., and R. Beverly Irwin, of Atlanta, Ga., for ap-pellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
The appellee was awarded damages for personal injuries sustained by her, when she slipped on a banana peeling, while travelling as a passenger from Winston-Salem, N. C., to Atlanta, Ga., on a bus operated by appellant. The latter assigns as error the failure of the court below to instruct the jury peremptorily to find for the defendant. No one saw the peeling on the floor before the accident, and it is not claimed that the carrier was at fault in putting it there. The appellee recognizes the burden on her to show its presence there long enough to give the carrier a reasonable opportunity to discover and remove it.
No presumption of fault on the part of the carrier arises here from the mere fact of injury. The burden is on the passenger, by substantial evidence, to prove facts from which a fair jury may reasonably infer that the injury was directly and proximately caused by the negligence of the carrier or its employees. Windham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (C.C.A.) 71 F.(2d) 115.
With these basic principles in mind, let us examine the material facts in evidence favorable to the appellee. She boarded the bus at Winston-Salem between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning of January 15, 1936, and got off at Charlotte to purchase a round-trip ticket from there to Atlanta. When she entered the bus again, around 11 o’clock, she noticed an elderly gentleman sitting two or three seats from the front, eating bananas. When the bus reached Gainesville, Ga., about 8 o’clock that night, the driver announced a five minutes stop; appellee got out and went to the restroom. When she returned and walked to her seat she noticed a magazine lying on the last seat of the bus. She is the sole witness as to what happened then, and her words are given full credence in discussing this assignment. The bus was not in motion. She walked back, picked up the magazine, and turned around to her seat, which was the second one from the rear. When she undertook to sit down, her foot hit a banana peeling right by the seat, and she fell, receiving serious physical injuries.
It is apparent that this case is controlled by Windham v. Atlanta Coast Line R. Co., supra, unless the mere fact of the man eating bananas near the front of the bus nine hours before the accident, coupled with the presence of a piece of banana peeling on the floor at the time of the injury, was sufficient to warrant the inference by a jury of fair and reasonable men that the peeling was thrown on the floor by the elderly gentleman and remained there until appellee slipped on it. Such an inference would be the result of mere speculation, and not a logical conclusion from any fact or facts in evidence. While the man was seen eating bananas, no one saw him throw the peeling on the floor or, in fact, saw the peeling. A fact once shown to exist is ordinarily presumed to continue until the contrary Appears, but obviously this presumption has no application to the activity of a man eating bananas. Liability cannot be imposed upon a carrier by a succession of inferences on an inference, as by inferring, first, that the banana was peeled in the bus; second, that the peeling was thrown on the floor; third, that it was removed by some unknown agency to the rear of the coach; and, fourth, that it remained there until appellee stepped on it. Much speculation might be indulged as to what the elderly gentleman did with the peeling of the banana he was eating, but one man’s guess is as good as another’s. Although the appellee did not testify that she saw it, we know that the banana once had a peeling; but there is no evidence as to when or where the peeling was removed or as to what became of it. Neither do we know that the elderly gentleman was the only person in the bus that ate a banana during the nine hours of that long trip.
It is true that some of the cases in denying recovery against railway companies have mentioned the fact that no bananas were seen on the train; but this is far from holding that the presence of bananas on a coach, either for sale or being eaten, is sufficient in itself to warrant a jury in finding against the carrier where a passenger has slipped on the peeling. Such a holding would render the carriers practical insurers in most cases, as it is well known that bananas are sold and eaten on nearly all trains.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4