Haines v. Reading Co.

Third Circuit

Haines v. Reading Co.

178 F.2d 918, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2183

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1950

Docket9992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 F.2d 918 (Haines v. Reading 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

Haines v. Reading Co., 178 F.2d 918, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2183 (3d Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., by a railroad' conductor who was injured in the course of the shifting of freight cars in a classification yard of the defendant. The plaintiff recovered a verdict. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendant has appealed. The defendant asserts that the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence certain of its rules relating to the use of air brakes and the placing of materials on top of cars and in permitting the jury to base its verdict on the alleged violation of these rules. We see no merit in this contention. The rules in question were identified and explained as applicable to the facts of the case by a witness, a retired employee of the defendant, whose 37 years experience as fireman, brakeman, conductor, assistant yardmaster, yardmaster, general yardmaster and assistant trainmaster obviously qualified him as an expert. Although two employees of the defendant testified that these rules were not applicable, an issue *919 of fact with respect thereto was raised which the trial judge rightly submitted to the jury. The jury was justified in finding from the evidence that the defendant’s failure to comply with the rules in question constituted negligence on its part which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. There is, therefore, no merit in the defendant’s contention that there was no evidence to support the verdict.

The judgment of the district court will Ibe affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., by a railroad' conductor who was injured in the course of the shifting of freight cars in a classification yard of the defendant. The plaintiff recovered a verdict. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendant has appealed. The defendant asserts that the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence certain of its rules relating to the use of air brakes and the placing of materials on top of cars and in permitting the jury to base its verdict on the alleged violation of these rules. We see no merit in this contention. The rules in question were identified and explained as applicable to the facts of the case by a witness, a retired employee of the defendant, whose 37 years experience as fireman, brakeman, conductor, assistant yardmaster, yardmaster, general yardmaster and assistant trainmaster obviously qualified him as an expert. Although two employees of the defendant testified that these rules were not applicable, an issue *919 of fact with respect thereto was raised which the trial judge rightly submitted to the jury. The jury was justified in finding from the evidence that the defendant’s failure to comply with the rules in question constituted negligence on its part which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. There is, therefore, no merit in the defendant’s contention that there was no evidence to support the verdict.

The judgment of the district court will Ibe affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 F.2d 918, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-reading-co-ca3-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack