Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company

Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Co., 189 F.2d 610 (3d Cir. 1951)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-06-19
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This appeal involves claim for damages for personal injuries. The claim is based on the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for alleged negligence and upon admiralty law .for alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel on which the plaintiff was injured. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered thereon.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lavinda McLeod v. Union Barge Line Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
McLEOD v. UNION BARGE LINE COMPANY,189 F.2d 610(3rd Cir. 1951)
Lavinda McLEOD, Appellant, v. UNION BARGE LINE COMPANY.
No. 10438.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued June 8, 1951.
Decided June 19, 1951.
Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Wallace S. Gourley, Judge.

See also 11 F.R.D. 167.
Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dalzell, McFall, Pringle Bredin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges and MARSH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves claim for damages for personal injuries. The claim is based on the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for alleged negligence and upon admiralty law for alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel on which the plaintiff was injured. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered thereon. The appellant alleges five points for reversal. Four of them are based upon what the judge charged or failed to charge. The fifth is based upon the refusal to award a new trial. No new or unsettled legal points are involved. We disagree with counsel that the trial judge misled the jury or charged it incorrectly on any of the points he raises. Nor do we think that the case is one where a determination by the jury should be upset.

The judgment of the District Court,95 F. Supp. 336, will be affirmed.