Briggs v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad

Sixth Circuit

Briggs v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad

18 F.2d 1015, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2130

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1927

DocketNo. 4725

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F.2d 1015 (Briggs v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briggs v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad, 18 F.2d 1015, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2130 (6th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error brought an action in the District Court to recover damages for injuries sustained by him while in the employ of the Norfolk & Western Railway Company, alleging that such injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence. To the petition of plaintiff the defendant filed an answer, denying negligence on its part, and pleading contributory negligence and assumption of risk. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the trial court, on motion of defendant, directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which was a proximate cause of his injury.

The trial court properly sustained the motion for a directed verdict. This ease presents no new questions of law for the consideration of this court. Eor the reasons stated, it is wholly unnecessary to discuss in detail the facts or the law applicable thereto, or to express any opinion in reference to the evidence tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error brought an action in the District Court to recover damages for injuries sustained by him while in the employ of the Norfolk & Western Railway Company, alleging that such injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence. To the petition of plaintiff the defendant filed an answer, denying negligence on its part, and pleading contributory negligence and assumption of risk. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the trial court, on motion of defendant, directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which was a proximate cause of his injury.

The trial court properly sustained the motion for a directed verdict. This ease presents no new questions of law for the consideration of this court. Eor the reasons stated, it is wholly unnecessary to discuss in detail the facts or the law applicable thereto, or to express any opinion in reference to the evidence tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F.2d 1015, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-detroit-toledo-ironton-railroad-ca6-1927.