Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stephen A. Walsh, in No. 15639 v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc., in No. 15640 v. Edward Stern and Co., Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided May 12, 1967No. 15839, 15640Published

1DissentSeitz, Circuit Judge

As I read the majority opinion it finds that the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury for two reasons: (1) the evidence was necessarily susceptible of inconsistent inferences, and (2) plaintiff when injured intended to follow a customary practice which he had followed prior thereto. I would agree with the majority’s conclusion were we concerned solely with the principles governing contributory negligence which they discuss. But the fact is that one of defendant’s principal contentions is that plaintiff, as his own testimony shows, was guilty of conduct which under…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kuhns v. BruggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Jinks v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Boyd v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Gregorius v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Jones v. American Caramel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API