Arthur A. Turchetta v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Third Circuit

Arthur A. Turchetta v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

237 F.2d 854

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 1956

Docket11960

StatusPublished

This text of 237 F.2d 854 (Arthur A. Turchetta v. Pennsylvania Railroad 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

Arthur A. Turchetta v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 237 F.2d 854 (3d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant railroad, appeals from a judgment entered on a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in his suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence while he was working with a riveting crew in the defendant’s Altoona shops. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant had been produced. We have carefully considered the record of this case in the light of the plaintiff’s argument on appeal but we are no more able than was the trial judge to find in the record any evidence upon which a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant could have been predicated by the jury.

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.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant railroad, appeals from a judgment entered on a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in his suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence while he was working with a riveting crew in the defendant’s Altoona shops. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant had been produced. We have carefully considered the record of this case in the light of the plaintiff’s argument on appeal but we are no more able than was the trial judge to find in the record any evidence upon which a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant could have been predicated by the jury.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-a-turchetta-v-pennsylvania-railroad-company-ca3-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack