Fernandez v. United Fruit Co.

Second Circuit

Fernandez v. United Fruit Co.

200 F.2d 414

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1952

DocketNo. 68, Docket 22444

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 F.2d 414 (Fernandez v. United Fruit 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

Fernandez v. United Fruit Co., 200 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is singularly lacking in merit and appellant’s -brief surely should not have been cluttered up with unfounded charges against the appellee’s counsel. The only question before this court meriting any discussion is whether the jury should have been allowed to deal with the plaintiff’s claim for recovery on the basis of alleged unseaworthiness. The plaintiff argues that this should have been done because liability for unseaworthiness had been asserted in the complaint and the pre-trial order had stated that none of the issues raised by the pleadings were abandoned. But the pre[415]*415trial order enumerated the only issues to he dealt with at the trial, and these were limited to questions raised by the allegations of negligence. If the plaintiff wished to present other issues at the trial he should have asked for an amendment of the pre-trial order, which he failed to do. We find no error in the conduct of the trial. The ver-diet for the defendant was, therefore, properly allowed to stand.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is singularly lacking in merit and appellant’s -brief surely should not have been cluttered up with unfounded charges against the appellee’s counsel. The only question before this court meriting any discussion is whether the jury should have been allowed to deal with the plaintiff’s claim for recovery on the basis of alleged unseaworthiness. The plaintiff argues that this should have been done because liability for unseaworthiness had been asserted in the complaint and the pre-trial order had stated that none of the issues raised by the pleadings were abandoned. But the pre[415]*415trial order enumerated the only issues to he dealt with at the trial, and these were limited to questions raised by the allegations of negligence. If the plaintiff wished to present other issues at the trial he should have asked for an amendment of the pre-trial order, which he failed to do. We find no error in the conduct of the trial. The ver-diet for the defendant was, therefore, properly allowed to stand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-united-fruit-co-ca2-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack