Sophe Boettger, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry W. Boettger, Deceased v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Third Circuit

Sophe Boettger, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry W. Boettger, Deceased v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company

253 F.2d 854, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1958

Docket12370

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 253 F.2d 854 (Sophe Boettger, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry W. Boettger, Deceased v. The Babcock & Wilcox 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

Sophe Boettger, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry W. Boettger, Deceased v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 253 F.2d 854, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The suit at bar, one for the recovery of damages for personal injuries, is now-before us for the second time. See Boettger v. Babcock & Wilcox Company,. 3 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 455. The present, appeal raises two issues. The first relates to two special interrogatories submitted by the trial court to the jury. The plaintiff-appellant asserts that the-trial court committed error in this submission but we can perceive no sound' basis for this contention. The second' ground asserted as error by the plaintiff-appellant is that references to “Workmen’s Compensation” were made by the-defendant’s counsel in his opening and' closing speech and by the Court in its charge and that this prejudiced the- *855 plaintiff-appellant’s case. No objection was taken when the references were made and therefore there is no ground for reversal here. Moreover, the answers given by the jury to the special interrogatories, 1(a) and 1(b), show that the jury decided that the defendant was not the plaintiff-appellant’s employer and therefore the references to “Workmen’s Compensation” could not have harmed the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The suit at bar, one for the recovery of damages for personal injuries, is now-before us for the second time. See Boettger v. Babcock & Wilcox Company,. 3 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 455. The present, appeal raises two issues. The first relates to two special interrogatories submitted by the trial court to the jury. The plaintiff-appellant asserts that the-trial court committed error in this submission but we can perceive no sound' basis for this contention. The second' ground asserted as error by the plaintiff-appellant is that references to “Workmen’s Compensation” were made by the-defendant’s counsel in his opening and' closing speech and by the Court in its charge and that this prejudiced the- *855 plaintiff-appellant’s case. No objection was taken when the references were made and therefore there is no ground for reversal here. Moreover, the answers given by the jury to the special interrogatories, 1(a) and 1(b), show that the jury decided that the defendant was not the plaintiff-appellant’s employer and therefore the references to “Workmen’s Compensation” could not have harmed the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 F.2d 854, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sophe-boettger-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-harry-w-boettger-deceased-ca3-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack