Blazosseck v. Remington & Sherman Co.

141 F. 1022, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided December 23, 1905·No. No. 29·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

That the plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence, whereby his present unfortunate condition was produced, I’have personally little doubt, but the jury’was of a different opinion, and I cannot say that the facts were so clear and undisputed that the question should have been decided by the court as a matter of law. Upon both questions—the defendant’s negligence being the other—it seemed to me that the testimony would have amply justified a verdict for the defendant, but I have- no disposition to interfere with the jury’s right to take a different view, since the evidence was certainly conflicting, and the settlement of the dispute belonged properly to that tribunal.

Entertaining this opinion, I do not see my way to grant a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict is inadequate.

The motions for new trial, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, are refused.

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

Blazosseck v. Remington & Sherman Co., 141 F. 1022, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (circtedpa 1905).

141 F. 1022 (Blazosseck v. Remington & Sherman Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sternberg v. First Nat. Bank of Camden
280 F. 863 (Third Circuit, 1922)