George Muryn v. New York Central Railroad Company
This text of 270 F.2d 645 (George Muryn v. New York Central Railroad Company) 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.
Opinion
George MURYN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 9, Docket 24770.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 7, 1959.
Decided Oct. 7, 1959.
Daniel Galinson, New York City (Bromsen & Gammerman, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
William L. Shumate, New York City (Gerald E. Dwyer, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff having consented to go to the jury on the factual issues, by his failure to move for a directed verdict, will not be heard now to challenge the verdict for the defendant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, 2 Cir., 1947,160 F.2d 432.
In any event, we are of the opinion that a jury question was presented by the evidence regarding the operation by the defendant's employee of an electrical transporter, as a result of which a three foot iron pipe was thrown through the air striking and injuring the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed in open court.
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
270 F.2d 645, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-muryn-v-new-york-central-railroad-company-ca2-1959.