Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company

Third Circuit

Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company

295 F.2d 236, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1961

Docket13622_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 F.2d 236 (Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 F.2d 236, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-barbuscia-v-reading-company-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack