Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

10300 (1950)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 10300 Visitors: 45
Filed: Dec. 29, 1950
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 185 F.2d 675 Ernest A. SCHMIDT and Robert A. Schmidt, a Minor, by His Next Friend, Ernest A. Schmidt, Appellants, v. Bedy LIZZA and Ernest DeBlasio, Doing Business as Keystone Fireworks& Specialty Company. No. 10300. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 21, 1950. Decided Dec. 29, 1950. Marvin D. Power, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Margiotti & Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., Henry J. Brandt and Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellants. Joseph
More

185 F.2d 675

Ernest A. SCHMIDT and Robert A. Schmidt, a Minor, by His
Next Friend, Ernest A. Schmidt, Appellants,
v.
Bedy LIZZA and Ernest DeBlasio, Doing Business as Keystone
Fireworks& Specialty Company.

No. 10300.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 21, 1950.
Decided Dec. 29, 1950.

Marvin D. Power, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Margiotti & Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., Henry J. Brandt and Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellants.

Joseph F. Weis, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Sherriff, Lindsay, Weis & McGinnis, Pittsburgh, Pa., of the brief), for appellees.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury for the defendants in a civil action for damages for injuries suffered by the minor plaintiff as a result of the premature explosion in Nebraska of an aerial bomb alleged to have been negligently manufactured by the defendants who were also charged to have violated an alleged implied warranty of fitness. The plaintiffs allege errors in the charge of the trial judge with respect to the Nebraska law of comparative negligence and assumption of risk and assert that the evidence did not support the verdict. Our examination of the record, however, satisfies us that the charge was free from error and that the evidence fully supported the jury's verdict.

2

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer