Norma Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc.

Second Circuit

Norma Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc.

283 F.2d 533, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3470

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1960

Docket61, Docket 26234

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 533 (Norma Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norma Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc., 283 F.2d 533, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3470 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We see no reason for disturbing the verdict and judgment for plaintiff for injuries sustained while riding on defendant’s ski lift on Mount Mansfield, Stowe, Vermont. The jury was justified in finding negligence on defendant’s part in the failure of its attendant to assist her in her attempts to open the gate to get out. The court’s charge requiring the highest degree of care for plaintiff’s safety by defendant as a common carrier was required by Vermont law if the defendant was to be regarded as such carrier; on the meager authority available in that state, as well as in reason, the judge’s ruling to that effect was justified. Perhaps the court might have stressed somewhat more that the care required must still be that “commensurate with the circumstances” calling for its exercise. See Ploesser v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co., 121 Vt. 133, 149 A.2d 728, 731. Nevertheless its earlier general charge on negligence and its references to “the circumstances surrounding” plaintiff’s accident could hardly have been misunderstood and were adequate, particularly in the absence of any request by defendant’s counsel for further explanation.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We see no reason for disturbing the verdict and judgment for plaintiff for injuries sustained while riding on defendant’s ski lift on Mount Mansfield, Stowe, Vermont. The jury was justified in finding negligence on defendant’s part in the failure of its attendant to assist her in her attempts to open the gate to get out. The court’s charge requiring the highest degree of care for plaintiff’s safety by defendant as a common carrier was required by Vermont law if the defendant was to be regarded as such carrier; on the meager authority available in that state, as well as in reason, the judge’s ruling to that effect was justified. Perhaps the court might have stressed somewhat more that the care required must still be that “commensurate with the circumstances” calling for its exercise. See Ploesser v. Burlington Rapid Transit Co., 121 Vt. 133, 149 A.2d 728, 731. Nevertheless its earlier general charge on negligence and its references to “the circumstances surrounding” plaintiff’s accident could hardly have been misunderstood and were adequate, particularly in the absence of any request by defendant’s counsel for further explanation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.2d 533, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norma-fisher-v-mt-mansfield-company-inc-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack