Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Simmons v. Gibbs Manufacturing Co.

275 F.2d 291

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1960-02-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In an action filed by the appellants on behalf of a young boy three years of age against the appellee, the manufacturer of a toy spinning top, seeking damages for the loss of an eye alleged to have been caused by the negligent manufacture of the top, and tried to the Court without a jury, the District Judge found that the evidence failed to prove negligence on the part of the appellee, and dismissed the action. The Court, being of the opinion that the finding is supporting by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous, Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., See: Graffius v. Weather-Seal, 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 782. It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Simmons v. Gibbs Manufacturing Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
SIMMONS v. GIBBS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,275 F.2d 291(6th Cir. 1960)
Paul SIMMONS, a minor, by his father and next friend, Michael Simmons,
Michael Simmons, individually and in his own right, Appellants, v. GIBBS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 13889.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
February 10, 1960.
S.F. Komito, A.H. Dudnik, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Dan M. Belden of Black, McCuskey, Souers Arbaugh, Canton, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MILLER and POPE, Circuit Judges, and KENT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In an action filed by the appellants on behalf of a young boy three years of age against the appellee, the manufacturer of a toy spinning top, seeking damages for the loss of an eye alleged to have been caused by the negligent manufacture of the top, and tried to the Court without a jury, the District Judge found that the evidence failed to prove negligence on the part of the appellee, and dismissed the action.

The Court, being of the opinion that the finding is supporting by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous, Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., See: Graffius v. Weather-Seal, 6 Cir.,165 F.2d 782.
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.Page 292
Page 303