Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation

29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 F. Supp. 506 (Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation, 29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

This motion is similar to the ones considered in Kenealy v. Texas Company, D. *507 C., 29 F.Supp. 502, and in Fluxgold v. United States Lines Company, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 506, and will be disposed of as indicated in the opinions in those cases. There is, however, an added item not found in the motion papers of the other cases asking for the production for inspection of the following: “All statements made by witnesses and any and all persons to the insurance company as to the manner of the happening of the accident”.

The objection of the defendants to the production of these statements is sustained for the reasons given in the opinion in the Kenealy case with respect to the statements of fellow employees as to the accident.

The motion of the plaintiff is granted only to the limited extent above indicated.

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

Related

Stark v. American Dredging Co.
3 F.R.D. 300 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1943)
French v. Zalstem-Zalessky
1 F.R.D. 508 (S.D. New York, 1940)
State v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc.
1 F.R.D. 213 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Gitto v. "Italia", Societa Anonima Di Navigazione
31 F. Supp. 567 (E.D. New York, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-waterman-ss-corporation-nysd-1939.