Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Sixth Circuit

Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad

38 F.2d 1015, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1930

DocketNo. 5448

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F.2d 1015 (Kuhnheim v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F.2d 1015, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuhnheim-v-pennsylvania-railroad-ca6-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack