Joseph A. Ross v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

197 F.2d 525, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 26, 1952·No. 10655·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the record discloses substantial evidence of negligence to sustain the jury’s verdict against the defendant. Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 323 U.S. 600, 604, 65 S.Ct. 545, 89 L.Ed. 490. Cf. Lukon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 131 F.2d 327, 328. The evidence also shows that the plaintiff’s act was not the sole efficient cause of the injury. A careful examination of the record and review of the briefs and oral argument convince us that the court below committed no prejudicial error. Consequently the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Joseph A. Ross v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 197 F.2d 525, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651 (3d Cir. 1952).

197 F.2d 525 (Joseph A. Ross v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Risko v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 485 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)