Harry L. Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Company and Centre Foundry and MacHine Company, a Corporation
This text of 464 F.2d 562 (Harry L. Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Company and Centre Foundry and MacHine Company, a Corporation) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant’s counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant’s contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
464 F.2d 562, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-l-hampson-v-bucyrus-erie-company-and-centre-foundry-and-machine-ca3-1972.