Williams v. American Bridge Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Williams v. American Bridge Co.

180 F. 118, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5458

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 17, 1910

DocketNo. 858

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. 118 (Williams v. American Bridge Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. American Bridge Co., 180 F. 118, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5458 (circtedpa 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I have gone carefully over the testimony in this case, and am unable to see how the questions in, dispute could have been withdrawn from the jury. Under the charge of the court they must have found: (1) That Marter, the plaintiff’s fellow servant, was not competent to do the work properly which the •defendant’s foreman permitted him to undertake; (2) that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in the effort to ascertain Marter’s competency; and (3) that the plaintiff’s injury was directly due to Marter’s lack of skill. On each of these subjects I think there was sufficient evidence to require its submission.

The motions are refused, and an exception is sealed to the refusal of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I have gone carefully over the testimony in this case, and am unable to see how the questions in, dispute could have been withdrawn from the jury. Under the charge of the court they must have found: (1) That Marter, the plaintiff’s fellow servant, was not competent to do the work properly which the •defendant’s foreman permitted him to undertake; (2) that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in the effort to ascertain Marter’s competency; and (3) that the plaintiff’s injury was directly due to Marter’s lack of skill. On each of these subjects I think there was sufficient evidence to require its submission.

The motions are refused, and an exception is sealed to the refusal of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 118, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-american-bridge-co-circtedpa-1910.