Southern Ry. Co. v. Kriminger

Sixth Circuit

Southern Ry. Co. v. Kriminger

248 F. 1021, 160 C.C.A. 665, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1509

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 1918

DocketNo. 3080

StatusPublished

This text of 248 F. 1021 (Southern Ry. Co. v. Kriminger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Ry. Co. v. Kriminger, 248 F. 1021, 160 C.C.A. 665, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1509 (6th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error (plaintiff below) Is a locomotive engineer. While in the employ of plaintiff in error (defendant below) and operating one of its engines, he was severely and permanently injured. This suit was brought to recover damages for such injuries, and resulted in verdict and judgment for a substantial amount. The errors assigned and relied upon are: First, the denial of a motion to direct a verdict in favor of the railway [1022]*1022• company; and, second, tlie refusal to aire a requested instruction to the jury. The questions presented in the lower court and here are purely questions of fact. The precise issues involved were correctly defined by the trial judge in a remarkably lucid and comprehensive charge to the jury. The requested instruction, so far as it might properly have been given, was fully covered in the general charge. The contention ctiat a verdict should have been directed in favor of the railway company rests primarily, if not wholly, upon the theory that it was a physical and mechanical impossibility for the accident to have happened and the injury to have been caused in the manner alleged and claimed by the defendant in error. This theory is fairly controverted by the testimony of several locomotive and mechanical engineers and other witnesses. The verdict was amply supported and justified by the evidence. An extended discussion of the case would serve no useful purpose. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error (plaintiff below) Is a locomotive engineer. While in the employ of plaintiff in error (defendant below) and operating one of its engines, he was severely and permanently injured. This suit was brought to recover damages for such injuries, and resulted in verdict and judgment for a substantial amount. The errors assigned and relied upon are: First, the denial of a motion to direct a verdict in favor of the railway [1022]*1022• company; and, second, tlie refusal to aire a requested instruction to the jury. The questions presented in the lower court and here are purely questions of fact. The precise issues involved were correctly defined by the trial judge in a remarkably lucid and comprehensive charge to the jury. The requested instruction, so far as it might properly have been given, was fully covered in the general charge. The contention ctiat a verdict should have been directed in favor of the railway company rests primarily, if not wholly, upon the theory that it was a physical and mechanical impossibility for the accident to have happened and the injury to have been caused in the manner alleged and claimed by the defendant in error. This theory is fairly controverted by the testimony of several locomotive and mechanical engineers and other witnesses. The verdict was amply supported and justified by the evidence. An extended discussion of the case would serve no useful purpose. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 F. 1021, 160 C.C.A. 665, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-ry-co-v-kriminger-ca6-1918.