Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Jack R. Croteau v. Borden Company and Eastman Kodak Corporation

395 F.2d 771

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-06-04
Topic
general

*772 OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant Eastman Kodak Company entered upon a verdict directed by the district court after the close of the defendant’s case. 1 The district court held, inter alia, that Eastman Kodak’s failure to warn was not the proximate cause of an explosion which resulted in plaintiff’s loss of his left hand. See Croteau v. Borden Co., 277 F.Supp. 945 (E.D.Pa.1968). We have independently examined the entire record, and we can find no error.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jack R. Croteau v. Borden Company and Eastman Kodak Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
CROTEAU v. BORDEN COMPANY,395 F.2d 771(3rd Cir. 1968)
Jack R. CROTEAU, Appellant, v. BORDEN COMPANY and Eastman Kodak
Corporation.
No. 17104.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 21, 1968.
Decided June 4, 1968.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; John P. Fullam, Judge.
Charles F. Love, Freedman, Borowsky Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Victor L. Drexel, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dolores B. Sesso, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.Page 772
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant Eastman Kodak Company entered upon a verdict directed by the district court after the close of the defendant's case.1The district court held,inter alia,that Eastman Kodak's failure to warn was not the proximate cause of an explosion which resulted in plaintiff's loss of his left hand. See Croteau v. Borden Co.,277 F. Supp. 945(E.D.Pa. 1968).

We have independently examined the entire record, and we can find no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.Page 773
  1. The district court also entered judgment in favor of defendant Borden Company, but plaintiff did not appeal from this judgment. ↩