Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad

38 F.2d 1015, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2448
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 7, 1930·No. No. 5448·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When Kuhnheim fell, there had been no occasion for him to set the brake, but only to try it. Except in or after setting, defects in dog or ratchet could not have contributed to such a fall. Nor is it more than a possibility that a chain too long could have so contributed. Even disregarding the eyewitness’ testimony, there can be only surmise that an inefficient brake caused the fall. In this respect, the case is ruled by our decision in Burnett v. Penna. Railroad Co. (C. C. A.) 33 F.(2d) 579.

Affirmed.

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

Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 38 F.2d 1015, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2448 (6th Cir. 1930).

38 F.2d 1015 (Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burnett v. Pennsylvania R.
33 F.2d 579 (Sixth Circuit, 1929)