Grady Ladson v. Frederick Fritz and Robert W. Shipley, Jr

Third Circuit

Grady Ladson v. Frederick Fritz and Robert W. Shipley, Jr

252 F.2d 292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1958

Docket12343_1

StatusPublished

This text of 252 F.2d 292 (Grady Ladson v. Frederick Fritz and Robert W. Shipley, Jr) 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

Grady Ladson v. Frederick Fritz and Robert W. Shipley, Jr, 252 F.2d 292 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a personal injury case and federal jurisdiction was based upon diversity. The accident which is the basis of this suit occurred on a highway in Pennsylvania. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict returned for the defendants.

The appellant complains on this appeal that the trial judge erroneously stated facts to the jury and the result of this erroneous statement was to confuse that body and thus to prevent a fair trial. There is no merit in the point. The trial judge told the jury over and over again that they were the sole judges of the facts. He told them that if their recollection differed from his, they were the ones responsible for the fact conclusion. He even explained the difference between himself and counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the facts and again emphasized the responsibility of the jury in fact finding. Other contentions raised by the appellant are equally without merit.

The case was fairly tried. The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a personal injury case and federal jurisdiction was based upon diversity. The accident which is the basis of this suit occurred on a highway in Pennsylvania. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict returned for the defendants.

The appellant complains on this appeal that the trial judge erroneously stated facts to the jury and the result of this erroneous statement was to confuse that body and thus to prevent a fair trial. There is no merit in the point. The trial judge told the jury over and over again that they were the sole judges of the facts. He told them that if their recollection differed from his, they were the ones responsible for the fact conclusion. He even explained the difference between himself and counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the facts and again emphasized the responsibility of the jury in fact finding. Other contentions raised by the appellant are equally without merit.

The case was fairly tried. The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F.2d 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grady-ladson-v-frederick-fritz-and-robert-w-shipley-jr-ca3-1958.