International Harvester Co. v. Troutman

Sixth Circuit

International Harvester Co. v. Troutman

173 F.2d 895, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1949

DocketNo. 10746

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F.2d 895 (International Harvester Co. v. Troutman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Harvester Co. v. Troutman, 173 F.2d 895, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925 (6th Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding $17,000 damages to appellee, as administratrix of Phillip A. Troutman, who was electrocuted through the alleged negligence of the appellant company in failing to provide a reasonably safe place in which the decedent could perform the work which he was ordered to do by his foreman, came on to be heard; and the cause having been duly considered on the record and on the oral arguments and briefs of attorneys for the contending parties, and it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and that no reversible error is found in the proceedings below; and for ■the reasons given in the opinion of the district judge, 83 F.Supp. 501, in acting upon the motion of appellant for a judgment non obstante veredicto and upon the supplemental motion for a new trial; the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding $17,000 damages to appellee, as administratrix of Phillip A. Troutman, who was electrocuted through the alleged negligence of the appellant company in failing to provide a reasonably safe place in which the decedent could perform the work which he was ordered to do by his foreman, came on to be heard; and the cause having been duly considered on the record and on the oral arguments and briefs of attorneys for the contending parties, and it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and that no reversible error is found in the proceedings below; and for ■the reasons given in the opinion of the district judge, 83 F.Supp. 501, in acting upon the motion of appellant for a judgment non obstante veredicto and upon the supplemental motion for a new trial; the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F.2d 895, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-harvester-co-v-troutman-ca6-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack