James E. Riggs v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

Sixth Circuit

James E. Riggs v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

216 F.2d 955

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 1954

Docket12064_1

StatusPublished

This text of 216 F.2d 955 (James E. Riggs v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company) 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

James E. Riggs v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, 216 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a brakeman in the employ of the appellee carrier, brought an action against the railway company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 351 et seq., for damages for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Upon due consideration of the oral arguments and briefs of the parties and of the record of evidence in the case, we find substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury, which was upheld by the district judge who entered judgment for the defendant thereon. No reversible error is observed in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admissibility or exclusion of evidence, nor is any such error disclosed in his charge to the jury. Indeed, we think his instructions to the jury were both appropriate and correct as to the issue of negligence, as well as to other pertinent matters.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a brakeman in the employ of the appellee carrier, brought an action against the railway company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 351 et seq., for damages for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Upon due consideration of the oral arguments and briefs of the parties and of the record of evidence in the case, we find substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury, which was upheld by the district judge who entered judgment for the defendant thereon. No reversible error is observed in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admissibility or exclusion of evidence, nor is any such error disclosed in his charge to the jury. Indeed, we think his instructions to the jury were both appropriate and correct as to the issue of negligence, as well as to other pertinent matters.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 F.2d 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-riggs-v-chesapeake-and-ohio-railway-company-ca6-1954.