George Rholetter, Administrator of the Estate of Lynn Deniserholetter, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellant, v. L.p. Services, Inc., Defendant-appellee,andhenry Hugh Young, Defendant.george Rholetter, Administrator of the Estate of Babyheather Marie Rholetter, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Henry Hugh Young; L.p. Services, Inc., Defendants-appellees.george Rholetter, Administrator of the Estate of Lynn Deniserholetter, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Henry Hugh Young; L.p. Services, Inc., Defendants-appellees.marvin L. Overman, Administrator of the Estate of Andy Craigoverman, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Henry Hugh Young, Defendant-appellee, 865 F.2d 1259 (4th Cir. 1988)

George Rholetter, Administrator of the Estate of Lynn Denise Rholetter and of the Estate of Baby Heather Marie Rholetter, and Marvin Overman, Administrator of the Estate of Andy Craig Overman, appeal from a judgment of the district court entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant in a consolidated trial. We affirm.

Denise Rholetter, her eight-month-old fetus, and Andy Overman were killed in an accident on November 26, 1986, when their automobile was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by defendant, Henry Young and owned by defendant, L.P. Services, Inc. Appellants filed these diversity actions below, claiming that defendants were liable for the wrongful death of Rholetter, Overman and the fetus. At the close of the evidence, the court granted the appellants' motion and dismissed all claims against Henry Young. The jury returned a verdict for the remaining defendant.

On appeal, appellants contend that the district court erred in: (1) denying their motion for a directed verdict; (2) allowing evidence of the alcohol consumption of Andy Overman; and (3) charging the jury on the law of negligence. Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we find appellants' contentions to be without merit. We conclude that there were controverted issues of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ and that, therefore, the court correctly denied the motion for directed verdict. Neal v. Howell, 689 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1982). We also find that there was no error in allowing evidence that Andy Overman was highly intoxicated when the accident occurred. One of the principal issues at the trial was the identity of the driver of the automobile and the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this clearly relevant evidence. Finally, we find no error in the trial court's charge to the jury on issues relating to negligence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.¹ 

AFFIRMED.