Clay v. Greyhound Corp.

Third Circuit

Clay v. Greyhound Corp.

275 F.2d 41

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1960

DocketNos. 13042-13045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 41 (Clay v. Greyhound Corp.) 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

Clay v. Greyhound Corp., 275 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are several appeals by unsuccessful plaintiffs in personal injury suits which followed a disastrous accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in July, 1955. The appellants now say that, although no objection was made to the instructions of the trial judge, he committed grave and fundamental error in that he did not charge the jury on concurrent causes in terms of our decision in Kendrick v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 482. We have noted the facts of the case and we have- examined the charge of the trial judge. We see no basis for invoking the rule that even in spite of absence of objection taken at the time fundamental errors which impair the fairness of the result reached at the trial will be corrected on appeal. The case was fairly tried and the jury returned a considered verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These are several appeals by unsuccessful plaintiffs in personal injury suits which followed a disastrous accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in July, 1955. The appellants now say that, although no objection was made to the instructions of the trial judge, he committed grave and fundamental error in that he did not charge the jury on concurrent causes in terms of our decision in Kendrick v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 482. We have noted the facts of the case and we have- examined the charge of the trial judge. We see no basis for invoking the rule that even in spite of absence of objection taken at the time fundamental errors which impair the fairness of the result reached at the trial will be corrected on appeal. The case was fairly tried and the jury returned a considered verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Fred Clay, Jr., by His Father and Natural Guardian, Fred Clay, Sr., and Fred Clay, Sr., in His Own Right, in No. 13,042, Richard H. Young, Administrator of Estate of Emma Mosby, Deceased, in No. 13,043, Mary Belle Clay, Administratrix of Estate of Dock H. Mosby, Deceased, in No. 13,044, Geneva Snuggs, Administratrix of Estate of John Henry Snuggs, Deceased, in No. 13,045 v. Greyhound Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff) v. Maggie Ellison, Administratrix of Estate of Samuel Ellison, Deceased (Third Party Defendant)

275 F.2d 41 (Third Circuit, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-greyhound-corp-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack