Opinion ID: 1180190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Gosney Testimony

Text: In essence the foregoing issue is again argued, but it is also contended that plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation in that the Gosney plane was of a different type than Cates', his plane having a 230 horsepower engine while Gosney's had a 150 and could land and take off in half the distance required for plaintiff's plane and that three men were in Cates' plane and only two in Gosney's. No authority is presented that the type aircraft referred to in Paragraph 5 would be so narrowly interpreted nor is there convincing argument that any prejudicial error occurred. From an examination of the entire record, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court's application of the law; and there was substantial evidence upon which the jury could reach its verdict. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed. Affirmed.