Robert Lee Watkins, and Cross-Appellee v. Continental Can Company, Inc., and Cross-Appellant

Fourth Circuit

Robert Lee Watkins, and Cross-Appellee v. Continental Can Company, Inc., and Cross-Appellant

332 F.2d 423, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1964

Docket9338

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 423 (Robert Lee Watkins, and Cross-Appellee v. Continental Can Company, Inc., and Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Lee Watkins, and Cross-Appellee v. Continental Can Company, Inc., and Cross-Appellant, 332 F.2d 423, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5489 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff while he was unloading a boxcar of paper shipped by the defendant. After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages, the court entered judgment n. o. v. for the defendant on the grounds that the evidence showed contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court *424 also conditionally granted the defendant’s motion for á new trial, if this court should set aside the judgment n. o. v. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(c) (1).

We cannot agree on this record that the evidence supports the court’s finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Nor can we say that the court abused its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff while he was unloading a boxcar of paper shipped by the defendant. After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages, the court entered judgment n. o. v. for the defendant on the grounds that the evidence showed contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court *424 also conditionally granted the defendant’s motion for á new trial, if this court should set aside the judgment n. o. v. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(c) (1).

We cannot agree on this record that the evidence supports the court’s finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Nor can we say that the court abused its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 423, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lee-watkins-and-cross-appellee-v-continental-can-company-inc-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack