Drew Cherry v. The Atlantic-Richfield Company, Texas Employers Insurance Association, Intervenor-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

Drew Cherry v. The Atlantic-Richfield Company, Texas Employers Insurance Association, Intervenor-Appellee

456 F.2d 1310, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10090

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1972

Docket71-3330

StatusPublished

This text of 456 F.2d 1310 (Drew Cherry v. The Atlantic-Richfield Company, Texas Employers Insurance Association, Intervenor-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drew Cherry v. The Atlantic-Richfield Company, Texas Employers Insurance Association, Intervenor-Appellee, 456 F.2d 1310, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10090 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The court required the jury to return its verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories. The instructions of the court explicitly charged the jury that it should not reach the issue of damages if it found that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose from work intimately connected with the defect the workmen were being employed to remedy. The first verdict both found that the injuries were intimately connected with the defect under repair and returned damage awards for both plaintiffs. Viewed in the most generous way, these answers were wholly inconsistent. It was not error for the court to refuse the answers and return the jury for further deliberation to resolve the conflict. 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 517-18 (1971). The other errors alleged were without merit. Affirmed. See Local Rule 21. 1

1

. Sec NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 430 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1970).

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

PER CURIAM:

The court required the jury to return its verdict in the form of answers to special interrogatories. The instructions of the court explicitly charged the jury that it should not reach the issue of damages if it found that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose from work intimately connected with the defect the workmen were being employed to remedy. The first verdict both found that the injuries were intimately connected with the defect under repair and returned damage awards for both plaintiffs. Viewed in the most generous way, these answers were wholly inconsistent. It was not error for the court to refuse the answers and return the jury for further deliberation to resolve the conflict. 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 517-18 (1971). The other errors alleged were without merit. Affirmed. See Local Rule 21. 1

1

. Sec NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 430 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1310, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-cherry-v-the-atlantic-richfield-company-texas-employers-insurance-ca5-1972.