Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Buzynski

Fifth Circuit

Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Buzynski

31 F.2d 1015, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659, 1929 A.M.C. 737

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1929

DocketNo. 4786

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 F.2d 1015 (Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Buzynski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Buzynski, 31 F.2d 1015, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659, 1929 A.M.C. 737 (5th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

On a former hearing we reversed a judgment of the District Court in favor of appellee. 19 F.(2d) 871. The ease is fully covered by our opinion above referred to, and need not be restated. From an inadvertent and unnecessary statement that the accident might have been caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that we had found there was evidence that the accident was so caused, and reversed our decision. 277 U. S. 226, 48 S. Ct. 440, 72 L. Ed. 860. We did not intend to make any such finding. A further examination of the record fails to disclose any evidence tending to show negligence on the part of either defendant, except the happening of the accident. The case presented is not one for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the cause of the accident is a matter of mere speculation and conjecture. We find no grounds for changing onr opinion formerly expressed. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Chatters, 49 S. Ct. 329, 73 L. Ed.-, decided April 15, 1929.

Reversed.

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

On a former hearing we reversed a judgment of the District Court in favor of appellee. 19 F.(2d) 871. The ease is fully covered by our opinion above referred to, and need not be restated. From an inadvertent and unnecessary statement that the accident might have been caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that we had found there was evidence that the accident was so caused, and reversed our decision. 277 U. S. 226, 48 S. Ct. 440, 72 L. Ed. 860. We did not intend to make any such finding. A further examination of the record fails to disclose any evidence tending to show negligence on the part of either defendant, except the happening of the accident. The case presented is not one for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the cause of the accident is a matter of mere speculation and conjecture. We find no grounds for changing onr opinion formerly expressed. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Chatters, 49 S. Ct. 329, 73 L. Ed.-, decided April 15, 1929.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F.2d 1015, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659, 1929 A.M.C. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckenbach-steamship-co-v-buzynski-ca5-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack