Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles W. Foster v. Donora Southern Railroad Company, 12090 (1957)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 12090 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 04, 1957
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 241 F.2d 714 Charles W. FOSTER v. DONORA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. No. 12090. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued Feb. 21, 1957. Decided March 4, 1957. Gilbert J. Helwig, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Edmund K. Trent, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant. Frederic G. Weir, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Oliver, Brandon & Shearer, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 This is an appea
More

241 F.2d 714

Charles W. FOSTER
v.
DONORA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 12090.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 21, 1957.
Decided March 4, 1957.

Gilbert J. Helwig, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Edmund K. Trent, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Frederic G. Weir, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Oliver, Brandon & Shearer, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal by the defendant railroad company from a verdict and judgment of $25,000 against it in a suit brought by an injured employee under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The sole question for our determination is whether the verdict was so grossly excessive that the refusal of the district court to grant a new trial because of it was an abuse of discretion which this court will correct. The district court filed an opinion in which it set forth its reasons for refusing to interfere with the verdict. 144 F. Supp. 297. While the verdict is large our examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence of the plaintiff's injuries was sufficient to support it. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence in detail. It is enough to say that we do not think that in permitting the verdict to stand the district court abused the broad discretion which the law entrusts to it in this regard.

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