John MacCarone v. A/s Inger

Second Circuit

John MacCarone v. A/s Inger

262 F.2d 569, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1959

Docket25125_1

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F.2d 569 (John MacCarone v. A/s Inger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John MacCarone v. A/s Inger, 262 F.2d 569, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant urges three grounds for reversal: (1) the judge’s refusal to charge upon the plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence; (2) a lack of proof of causal relationship between an overriding turn of the up-and-down cable on its drum and the accident; and (3) a failure to charge the jury that the plaintiff was being compensated under New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 1 et seq., and would have to re *570 imburse his stevedore-employer in case of recovery.

The trial judge might properly have thought that the defense of contributory negligence had been abandoned on trial. But that aside, that defense, for lack of substantial evidence, was properly overruled and withheld from the jury. On the issue of proximate cause, examination of the record discloses substantial evidence that the sudden inward movement of the draft was caused by an override in the up-and-down cable. The question was one properly submitted to the jury. Finally, we hold, the plaintiff’s rights under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law were irrelevant to a determination of his damages.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant urges three grounds for reversal: (1) the judge’s refusal to charge upon the plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence; (2) a lack of proof of causal relationship between an overriding turn of the up-and-down cable on its drum and the accident; and (3) a failure to charge the jury that the plaintiff was being compensated under New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 1 et seq., and would have to re *570 imburse his stevedore-employer in case of recovery.

The trial judge might properly have thought that the defense of contributory negligence had been abandoned on trial. But that aside, that defense, for lack of substantial evidence, was properly overruled and withheld from the jury. On the issue of proximate cause, examination of the record discloses substantial evidence that the sudden inward movement of the draft was caused by an override in the up-and-down cable. The question was one properly submitted to the jury. Finally, we hold, the plaintiff’s rights under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law were irrelevant to a determination of his damages.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 569, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-maccarone-v-as-inger-ca2-1959.