The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Richard L. York

Sixth Circuit

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Richard L. York

203 F.2d 564, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 6, 1953·No. 11690·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

■ This case came on to b.e heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel:

And it appearing that it was. a question of fact, whether ¡appellant was negligent in grounding its semaphore tower so that in the event of lightning striking the towpr a side flash passing into the telegraph shanty was probable and foreseeable, and whether defects.existed in the equipment maintained by appellant in , ¡appellee’s. telegraph shanty, and whether such circumstances or either of them, if found to exist, caused or proximately contributed^ to appellee’s injury;

And it appearing that the evidence was rightly submitted to the jury' under proper instructions; Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U.S. 435, 11 S.Ct. 859, 35 L.Ed. 458; Benner v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 348 Mo. 928, 156 S.W.2d 657. Cf. Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine R., 329 U.S. 452, 67 S.Ct. 401, 91 L.Ed. 416.

And no reversible error appearing from the record;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

■ This case came on to b.e heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel:

And it appearing that it was. a question of fact, whether ¡appellant was negligent in grounding its semaphore tower so that in the event of lightning striking the towpr a side flash passing into the telegraph shanty was probable and foreseeable, and whether defects.existed in the equipment maintained by appellant in , ¡appellee’s. telegraph shanty, and whether such circumstances or either of them, if found to exist, caused or proximately contributed^ to appellee’s injury;

And it appearing that the evidence was rightly submitted to the jury' under proper instructions; Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co., 140 U.S. 435, 11 S.Ct. 859, 35 L.Ed. 458; Benner v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 348 Mo. 928, 156 S.W.2d 657. Cf. Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine R., 329 U.S. 452, 67 S.Ct. 401, 91 L.Ed. 416.

And no reversible error appearing from the record;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed.

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Richard L. York, 203 F.2d 564, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

203 F.2d 564 (The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Richard L. York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related