John Crabtree v. St. Thomas Electric Company and Vitraco, Inc. Vitraco, Inc.

Third Circuit

John Crabtree v. St. Thomas Electric Company and Vitraco, Inc. Vitraco, Inc.

368 F.2d 573, 5 V.I. 693, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1966

Docket15675

StatusPublished

This text of 368 F.2d 573 (John Crabtree v. St. Thomas Electric Company and Vitraco, Inc. Vitraco, Inc.) 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

John Crabtree v. St. Thomas Electric Company and Vitraco, Inc. Vitraco, Inc., 368 F.2d 573, 5 V.I. 693, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued appellant for damages arising out of personal injuries to him allegedly sustained because of appellant’s *574 negligence. The trial was to the Court. The latter found as a fact that at all times relevant to the case, plaintiff had been “ * * '* an employee of Continental Interiors” and that “At no time was he employed or under the direction of Vitraco.” There were the further findings that negligently piled Vitraco, Inc., crates fell and struck plaintiff “causing the back injury from which he now complains.” The Court also held as Conclusions of Law that “The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence” and that the negligent piling of the crates was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The trial record substantially supports those findings and conclusions of the Court. We hold that the other contentions argued on behalf of appellant are without merit.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued appellant for damages arising out of personal injuries to him allegedly sustained because of appellant’s *574 negligence. The trial was to the Court. The latter found as a fact that at all times relevant to the case, plaintiff had been “ * * '* an employee of Continental Interiors” and that “At no time was he employed or under the direction of Vitraco.” There were the further findings that negligently piled Vitraco, Inc., crates fell and struck plaintiff “causing the back injury from which he now complains.” The Court also held as Conclusions of Law that “The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence” and that the negligent piling of the crates was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The trial record substantially supports those findings and conclusions of the Court. We hold that the other contentions argued on behalf of appellant are without merit.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 573, 5 V.I. 693, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-crabtree-v-st-thomas-electric-company-and-vitraco-inc-vitraco-ca3-1966.