Pullman Co. v. Haight

Second Circuit

Pullman Co. v. Haight

151 F. 1009, 81 C.C.A. 287, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1907

DocketNo. 152

StatusPublished

This text of 151 F. 1009 (Pullman Co. v. Haight) 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

Pullman Co. v. Haight, 151 F. 1009, 81 C.C.A. 287, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4213 (2d Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts in evidence presented a question for the jury upon the questions of the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and authorized the different inferences to be drawn, ttpon the issues whether the porter’s collision with the plaintiff’s leg was an accident or a careless act, and whether the plaintiff’s leg proj eeted so far into the aisle as to interfere with the duties of the porter and promote the probability of injury in case of his carelessness. The motion to direct a verdict was therefore properly refused.

The case was left to the jury under full and accurate instructions as to the law applicable to the facts, and none of the exceptions to them, or to the refusal of requests for further instructions, have any merit. No error was committed in the rulings upon evidence. There is nothing in the case of complexity or peculiarity to call for an extended discussion of the errors assigned.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facts in evidence presented a question for the jury upon the questions of the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and authorized the different inferences to be drawn, ttpon the issues whether the porter’s collision with the plaintiff’s leg was an accident or a careless act, and whether the plaintiff’s leg proj eeted so far into the aisle as to interfere with the duties of the porter and promote the probability of injury in case of his carelessness. The motion to direct a verdict was therefore properly refused.

The case was left to the jury under full and accurate instructions as to the law applicable to the facts, and none of the exceptions to them, or to the refusal of requests for further instructions, have any merit. No error was committed in the rulings upon evidence. There is nothing in the case of complexity or peculiarity to call for an extended discussion of the errors assigned.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 F. 1009, 81 C.C.A. 287, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullman-co-v-haight-ca2-1907.