Pennsylvania R. v. Martin
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
‘ In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff (below) sued to recover damages for personal hurt, which (as lie claimed and we may assume) was inflicted upon him by a piece of iron, part of a brake shoe, which was projected from one of the cars oí a rapidly moving-train of the defendant (below) and struck the plaintiff, who was walking alongside tile track. It has been properly conceded that, if the case should have been submitted to the jury at all, the instructions which accompanied its submission would not have been open to criticism; but the learned trial judge was asked to direct a verdict for the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hargreaves v. DeaconMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. SchwindlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Gillis v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
3Cited by10 opinions
- So. Ry. Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Papich v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- National Ass'n of Ry. Postal Clerks v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- Hammer v. British Type Investors, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1933
- Shoup v. MarksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.