Stanley J. Rekasie v. Bucyrus-Erie Company, a Corporation (Macdonald Engineering Co., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Defendant)

Third Circuit

Stanley J. Rekasie v. Bucyrus-Erie Company, a Corporation (Macdonald Engineering Co., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Defendant)

262 F.2d 804, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1959

Docket12705_1

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F.2d 804 (Stanley J. Rekasie v. Bucyrus-Erie Company, a Corporation (Macdonald Engineering Co., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Defendant)) 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

Stanley J. Rekasie v. Bucyrus-Erie Company, a Corporation (Macdonald Engineering Co., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Defendant), 262 F.2d 804, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant, Rekasie, seeks to impose liability upon Bucyrus-Erie Company, the defendant-appellee, for personal injuries incurred by him while working on a construction job in Pennsylvania on the theory that a hook used on a crane by MacDonald Engineering Company, the third-party defendant, was of a type which, lacking certain safety features, was negligently employed by *805 MacDonald Engineering Company under the circumstances. The court below directed a verdict in favor of Bucyrus-Erie. Jurisdiction is based on diversity and the law of Pennsylvania governs. The record demonstrates a failure of proof in two vital respects: first, there was lack of evidence to prove that the hook complained of was supplied by Bucyrus-Erie Company; second, there was no adequate evidence from which the jury would have been entitled to find that the use of the kind of hook, which the plaintiff asserts was employed, constituted negligence under the circumstances. Consequently the judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant, Rekasie, seeks to impose liability upon Bucyrus-Erie Company, the defendant-appellee, for personal injuries incurred by him while working on a construction job in Pennsylvania on the theory that a hook used on a crane by MacDonald Engineering Company, the third-party defendant, was of a type which, lacking certain safety features, was negligently employed by *805 MacDonald Engineering Company under the circumstances. The court below directed a verdict in favor of Bucyrus-Erie. Jurisdiction is based on diversity and the law of Pennsylvania governs. The record demonstrates a failure of proof in two vital respects: first, there was lack of evidence to prove that the hook complained of was supplied by Bucyrus-Erie Company; second, there was no adequate evidence from which the jury would have been entitled to find that the use of the kind of hook, which the plaintiff asserts was employed, constituted negligence under the circumstances. Consequently the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 804, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-j-rekasie-v-bucyrus-erie-company-a-corporation-macdonald-ca3-1959.