Coffey v. Nicholson Transit Co.

Second Circuit

Coffey v. Nicholson Transit Co.

138 F.2d 915, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1944 A.M.C. 78

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1943

DocketNo. 115

StatusPublished

This text of 138 F.2d 915 (Coffey v. Nicholson Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coffey v. Nicholson Transit Co., 138 F.2d 915, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1944 A.M.C. 78 (2d Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was an employee of a stevedoring contractor engaged in discharging a cargo of grain from the defendant’s vessel. He sustained injuries in falling from an unlashed ladder which slipped while he was ascending it from the between deck. The issues left to the jury were whether the defendant failed in its duty to furnish the grain handlers with a reasonably safe means of egress from the holds, and whether the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident. Error is assigned to the court’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant. Without reciting the evidence it will suffice to say that the plaintiff made a case which amply justified submission of these issues to the jury. The contention that the court erred in declining to give a requested instruction is too unsubstantial to merit discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was an employee of a stevedoring contractor engaged in discharging a cargo of grain from the defendant’s vessel. He sustained injuries in falling from an unlashed ladder which slipped while he was ascending it from the between deck. The issues left to the jury were whether the defendant failed in its duty to furnish the grain handlers with a reasonably safe means of egress from the holds, and whether the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident. Error is assigned to the court’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant. Without reciting the evidence it will suffice to say that the plaintiff made a case which amply justified submission of these issues to the jury. The contention that the court erred in declining to give a requested instruction is too unsubstantial to merit discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F.2d 915, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1944 A.M.C. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-nicholson-transit-co-ca2-1943.