Charles Schulze v. Arundel Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Charles Schulze v. Arundel Corporation

377 F.2d 280, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1967

Docket11050

StatusPublished

This text of 377 F.2d 280 (Charles Schulze v. Arundel Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Schulze v. Arundel Corporation, 377 F.2d 280, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6619 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Schulze sued his employer, Arundel Corporation, for injuries sustained by him when one of defendant’s tugboats collided with defendant’s derrick, on which plaintiff was riding in the course of his employment. The district court found the defendant negligent, but that plaintiff’s damages of $7,000 should be reduced by thirty percent because of his contributory negligence. On appeal plaintiff contends that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous, that the court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict, that the award was inadequate and that the court’s finding of contributory negligence was not supported by the evidence.

After a careful review of the record, the briefs and the findings of the district court, as stated orally from the bench, we are of the opinion that there was no reversible error. The judgment of the district court is hereby

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Schulze sued his employer, Arundel Corporation, for injuries sustained by him when one of defendant’s tugboats collided with defendant’s derrick, on which plaintiff was riding in the course of his employment. The district court found the defendant negligent, but that plaintiff’s damages of $7,000 should be reduced by thirty percent because of his contributory negligence. On appeal plaintiff contends that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous, that the court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict, that the award was inadequate and that the court’s finding of contributory negligence was not supported by the evidence.

After a careful review of the record, the briefs and the findings of the district court, as stated orally from the bench, we are of the opinion that there was no reversible error. The judgment of the district court is hereby

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.2d 280, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-schulze-v-arundel-corporation-ca4-1967.