Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company

295 F.2d 236, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided October 9, 1961·No. 13622_1·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an F.E.L.A. case. He claims permanent injury through an accident which occurred when he was stacking some lumber being torn from the ceiling of a building belonging to the defendant. The question of the believability of the plaintiff’s story was a jury question and the jury took his version in the face of a strong case to the contrary. Complaint is made of several matters which occurred in the course of the trial. One has to do with the failure to grant a continuance at the defendant’s request. Another has to do with the exclusion of proffered testimony based upon an Army medical report made seventeen years pri- *237 or to the trial. Another has to do with whether there was anything to show contributory negligence which could have been argued to the jury. These first two objections fall within the general discretion of the trial judge who is in charge of the case. We agree that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. We do not find that here there was any reversible error.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company, 295 F.2d 236, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505 (3d Cir. 1961).

295 F.2d 236 (Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Howard Taylor
562 F.2d 572 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
Courtney v. Courtney
542 P.2d 164 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1975)