Paine v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Fifth Circuit

Paine v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.

249 F. 477, 161 C.C.A. 435, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1918

DocketNo. 3100

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 F. 477 (Paine v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.) 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

Paine v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., 249 F. 477, 161 C.C.A. 435, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247 (5th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit charging the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company with specific acts of negligence in connection with the burning of the property of plaintiff in error in which the wires of the Telephone Company were located. After hearing witnesses, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The case is brought to this court upon two assignments of error, to wit:

“I. Tliat this court committed an error in refusing to admit testimony as to previous fires in 1he telephone exchange of the defendant in the town of Coving!on, as set forth in bill of exceptions No. 1.

“II. That the court erred in directing a verdict in this case on motion of [478]*478the defendant after plaintiff had rested his case, but, on the contrary, should have ordered the trial to proceed, the whole as set forth in hill of exceptions No. 2.”

After hearing the arguments and 'examining the record, we conclude that neither assignment is well taken. The evidence rejected by the court was not admissible under the pleadings, and the evidence offered wholly failed to sustain the charges of negligence set forth in the petition. The rule of res ipsa loquitur does riot relieve the plaintiff in error from the burden of showing negligence. See Patten v. T. & P. R. Co., 179 U. S. 658, 21 Sup. Ct. 275, 45 L. Ed. 361, and Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 33 Sup. Ct. 416, 57 L. Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 905.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit charging the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company with specific acts of negligence in connection with the burning of the property of plaintiff in error in which the wires of the Telephone Company were located. After hearing witnesses, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The case is brought to this court upon two assignments of error, to wit:

“I. Tliat this court committed an error in refusing to admit testimony as to previous fires in 1he telephone exchange of the defendant in the town of Coving!on, as set forth in bill of exceptions No. 1.

“II. That the court erred in directing a verdict in this case on motion of [478]*478the defendant after plaintiff had rested his case, but, on the contrary, should have ordered the trial to proceed, the whole as set forth in hill of exceptions No. 2.”

After hearing the arguments and 'examining the record, we conclude that neither assignment is well taken. The evidence rejected by the court was not admissible under the pleadings, and the evidence offered wholly failed to sustain the charges of negligence set forth in the petition. The rule of res ipsa loquitur does riot relieve the plaintiff in error from the burden of showing negligence. See Patten v. T. & P. R. Co., 179 U. S. 658, 21 Sup. Ct. 275, 45 L. Ed. 361, and Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 33 Sup. Ct. 416, 57 L. Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 905.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F. 477, 161 C.C.A. 435, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-cumberland-telephone-telegraph-co-ca5-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack