Gibson v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

Third Circuit

Gibson v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

204 F.2d 924, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1953

Docket11013

StatusPublished

This text of 204 F.2d 924 (Gibson v. Pennsylvania R. Co.) 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

Gibson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 204 F.2d 924, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539 (3d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

*925 PER CURIAM.

This is a suit brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.'C.A. § 51 et seq., and the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 22 et seq. The defendant received a verdict in the court below. All that the plaintiff complains of here is the trial judge’s charge to the jury. This we have examined. Everything the judge said was literally correct and any slight possibility that the jury could have been confused into thinking that negligence was required for liability under the Boiler Inspection Act is completely eliminated by the judge’s giving, at plaintiff’s request, specific instruction to the effect that negligence is not necessary under that statute.

The charge of the trial court was careful, fair and accurate. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

*925 PER CURIAM.

This is a suit brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.'C.A. § 51 et seq., and the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 22 et seq. The defendant received a verdict in the court below. All that the plaintiff complains of here is the trial judge’s charge to the jury. This we have examined. Everything the judge said was literally correct and any slight possibility that the jury could have been confused into thinking that negligence was required for liability under the Boiler Inspection Act is completely eliminated by the judge’s giving, at plaintiff’s request, specific instruction to the effect that negligence is not necessary under that statute.

The charge of the trial court was careful, fair and accurate. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 F.2d 924, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-pennsylvania-r-co-ca3-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack