Maxine W. Siegferth, Guardian of Robert H. Siegferth, an Incompetent Person v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.

Sixth Circuit

Maxine W. Siegferth, Guardian of Robert H. Siegferth, an Incompetent Person v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.

498 F.2d 392, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8428

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1974

Docket73-1820

StatusPublished

This text of 498 F.2d 392 (Maxine W. Siegferth, Guardian of Robert H. Siegferth, an Incompetent Person v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.) 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

Maxine W. Siegferth, Guardian of Robert H. Siegferth, an Incompetent Person v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 498 F.2d 392, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8428 (6th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is the guardian of her husband who was permanently injured and completely disabled when his car was struck by a B & O Railroad Co. freight train on December 23, 1969. Appellant’s lawyer sought the same strict liability instruction pertaining to the Ohio Whistle and Bell Statute which was sought and given in Glinsey v. B & O Railroad Co., 356 F.Supp. 984 (N.D. Ohio 1973), and he now claims reversible error in the fact that the District Judge in this case denied same and gave an instruction on contributory negligence. Thus, the issues in this appeal are identical with those in the Glinsey case except that here, without the strict liability instruction, the jury found no cause for action on the part of appellant.

The Glinsey appeal has just been decided by another panel of this Court. The District Court judgment therein was reversed, and the strict liability instruction was disapproved. Glinsey v. B & O R.R. Co., 495 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1974). On the basis of the reasoning and conclusions in Glinsey, supra, and finding no other issue of merit, the judgment of the District Court in our instant case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is the guardian of her husband who was permanently injured and completely disabled when his car was struck by a B & O Railroad Co. freight train on December 23, 1969. Appellant’s lawyer sought the same strict liability instruction pertaining to the Ohio Whistle and Bell Statute which was sought and given in Glinsey v. B & O Railroad Co., 356 F.Supp. 984 (N.D. Ohio 1973), and he now claims reversible error in the fact that the District Judge in this case denied same and gave an instruction on contributory negligence. Thus, the issues in this appeal are identical with those in the Glinsey case except that here, without the strict liability instruction, the jury found no cause for action on the part of appellant.

The Glinsey appeal has just been decided by another panel of this Court. The District Court judgment therein was reversed, and the strict liability instruction was disapproved. Glinsey v. B & O R.R. Co., 495 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1974). On the basis of the reasoning and conclusions in Glinsey, supra, and finding no other issue of merit, the judgment of the District Court in our instant case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 F.2d 392, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxine-w-siegferth-guardian-of-robert-h-siegferth-an-incompetent-person-ca6-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack