Norman B. Sather v. General Electric Company, a New York Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Norman B. Sather v. General Electric Company, a New York Corporation

394 F.2d 179, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7287

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1968

Docket21700_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 179 (Norman B. Sather v. General Electric Company, a New York Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norman B. Sather v. General Electric Company, a New York Corporation, 394 F.2d 179, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7287 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, appellant here, was a distributor of electrical appliances manufactured or sold by the defendant appel-lee. The appellee had a wholesale warehouse equipped with an inclined ramp at one of its doors permitting a truck to be backed for loading. On the occasion here in question plaintiff drove his enclosed truck to the warehouse and backed it up on the inclined ramp toward the warehouse door. He alighted from his truck and walked toward the door up the ramp on the curbing which was along its edge. In some manner he fell to the ground some three feet below and received the injuries for which he seeks recovery, charging the defendant with negligence in the construction of the ramp.

The ease was tried to the court sitting without a jury which found that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence, which was the sole proximate cause of the accident, due to the manner in which he had positioned his truck on the ramp and his choosing to walk on the curbing rather than on the surface of the driveway. The court found no negligence on the part of the defendant or in the manner in which the ramp was constructed. Accordingly, judgment was entered for the defendant, the appellee here.

Since we find that the findings of the trial court were amply sustained by the evidence and that they are not clearly erroneous, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, appellant here, was a distributor of electrical appliances manufactured or sold by the defendant appel-lee. The appellee had a wholesale warehouse equipped with an inclined ramp at one of its doors permitting a truck to be backed for loading. On the occasion here in question plaintiff drove his enclosed truck to the warehouse and backed it up on the inclined ramp toward the warehouse door. He alighted from his truck and walked toward the door up the ramp on the curbing which was along its edge. In some manner he fell to the ground some three feet below and received the injuries for which he seeks recovery, charging the defendant with negligence in the construction of the ramp.

The ease was tried to the court sitting without a jury which found that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence, which was the sole proximate cause of the accident, due to the manner in which he had positioned his truck on the ramp and his choosing to walk on the curbing rather than on the surface of the driveway. The court found no negligence on the part of the defendant or in the manner in which the ramp was constructed. Accordingly, judgment was entered for the defendant, the appellee here.

Since we find that the findings of the trial court were amply sustained by the evidence and that they are not clearly erroneous, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 179, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-b-sather-v-general-electric-company-a-new-york-corporation-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack