Legal Opinion
Haywood v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 1, 1952No. Civ. No. 7657PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOURLEY, Chief Judge.
This proceeding relates to a claim for' damages under the Jones Act based on negligence and the maritime' and admiralty law based on the doctrine of unseaworthiness. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.
The case was administered by jury trial. The verdict was found in favor of defendant.
Motion for a new trial has been filed by the plaintiff. It is contended:(a) The verdict is against the evidence, and the weight of the evidence.(b) The Court erred in instructing the jury on the subject of contributory negligence.(c) The'Court erred in refusing to admit evidence and permit plaintiff to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- American Stevedores, Inc. v. PorelloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- The Max MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Francis v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Masterson v. Pennsylvania R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Vance W. Williams v. Tide Water Associated Oil Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Haywood v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953