Samuel L. Bowers v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Third Circuit

Samuel L. Bowers v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

281 F.2d 953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedSeptember 23, 1960

Docket13225

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 281 F.2d 953 (Samuel L. Bowers v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samuel L. Bowers v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 281 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a Federal Employer’s Liability case. A judgment followed a verdict by the jury and the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied by Judge Layton. In overruling the motion he made a careful analysis of the points presented by the defendant, considered them and ruled adversely upon them. D.C.Del.1960, 182 F.Supp. 756.

We think the trial judge was right. The failure to give an instruction on causation asked for by the defendant was more than adequately compensated by the correct charge on the point which the judge gave the jury. Defendant’s complaint of plaintiff’s counsel’s argument concerning pecuniary reimbursement for pain and suffering was carefully and correctly discussed by the trial judge. Any reliance upon our earlier decision of Vaughan v. Magee, 3 Cir., 1914, 218 F. 630, is not well taken in view of our later cases. See Garrett v. Faust, 3 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 625, 629; Smith v. Philadelphia Trans. Co., 3 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 721, 726.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a Federal Employer’s Liability case. A judgment followed a verdict by the jury and the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied by Judge Layton. In overruling the motion he made a careful analysis of the points presented by the defendant, considered them and ruled adversely upon them. D.C.Del.1960, 182 F.Supp. 756.

We think the trial judge was right. The failure to give an instruction on causation asked for by the defendant was more than adequately compensated by the correct charge on the point which the judge gave the jury. Defendant’s complaint of plaintiff’s counsel’s argument concerning pecuniary reimbursement for pain and suffering was carefully and correctly discussed by the trial judge. Any reliance upon our earlier decision of Vaughan v. Magee, 3 Cir., 1914, 218 F. 630, is not well taken in view of our later cases. See Garrett v. Faust, 3 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 625, 629; Smith v. Philadelphia Trans. Co., 3 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 721, 726.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 F.2d 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-l-bowers-v-pennsylvania-railroad-company-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack