Opinion ID: 1184970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Agency of Driver

Text: What we have said about the submission to the jury of the issues discussed above is also applicable to the plaintiff's contention that any negligence of her husband should not prevent her recovery. The trial court correctly submitted that issue to the jury and instructed them that unless they found that he was driving as her agent, any negligence on his part would not be imputable to her. It is our opinion that the parties have had what they were entitled to: an opportunity to present their evidence and their contentions to a court and jury and have had a fair trial upon the issues. That being so, the presumptions are in favor of the validity of the verdict and the judgment. No error is shown which is prejudicial in the sense that in its absence there is a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a contrary result. [3] Affirmed. Costs to defendants (respondents). CALLISTER, TUCKETT and HENRIOD, JJ., concur. McDONOUGH, J., heard the arguments but died before the opinion was filed.