Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Harry L. Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Company and Centre Foundry and MacHine Company, a Corporation

464 F.2d 562

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-07-18
Topic
general

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant’s counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant’s contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury. The judgment will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Harry L. Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Company and Centre Foundry and MacHine Company, a Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
HAMPSON v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY,464 F.2d 562(3rd Cir. 1972)
HARRY L. HAMPSON, APPELLANT, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY AND CENTRE FOUNDRY AND
MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION.
No. 71-1754.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted June 8, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).
Decided July 18, 1972.
Page 563
Milton D. Rosenberg, Bloom, Bloom, Rosenberg Bloom, Washington, Pa., and Jon L. Friedman, Friedman Friedman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Charles Kirshner, Rosenberg, Kirshner Solomon; Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Before HASTIE, GIBBONS and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant's counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant's contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury.

[3] The judgment will be affirmed.Page 573