Muryn v. New York Central Railroad

Second Circuit

Muryn v. New York Central Railroad

270 F.2d 645

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided October 7, 1959·No. No. 9, Docket 24770·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, having consented to go to the jury on the factual issues, by his failure to move for a directed verdict, will not be heard now to challenge the verdict for the defendant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, 2 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 432.

In any event, we are of the opinion that a jury question was presented by the evidence regarding the operation by the defendant’s employee of an electrical [646]*646transporter, as a result of which a three foot iron pipe was thrown through the air striking and injuring the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed in open court.

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, having consented to go to the jury on the factual issues, by his failure to move for a directed verdict, will not be heard now to challenge the verdict for the defendant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corporation, 2 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 432.

In any event, we are of the opinion that a jury question was presented by the evidence regarding the operation by the defendant’s employee of an electrical [646]*646transporter, as a result of which a three foot iron pipe was thrown through the air striking and injuring the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed in open court.

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

Muryn v. New York Central Railroad, 270 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

270 F.2d 645 (Muryn v. New York Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related