The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After finding facts as indicated in its reasoning based on adopted evidence, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the ground that the Defendant did not have a duty to specifically direct, supervise, or supervise the Plaintiff with respect to the transport method or loading weight of the instant vehicle, and that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have ordered the Plaintiff to load the instant cargo from 15t to 18t even with knowledge that the loading weight of the instant vehicle was fivets.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to interpretation of a transport contract or joint tort, or omitting judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.