Canal Const. Co. v. Henson
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Jacob Trieber, Judge. Action at law by G. C. Henson against the Canal Construction Company. Judgment for plaintiff, arid defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
CAREAND, Circuit Judge.
Henson, hereafter called plaintiff, sued the construction company, hereafter called defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries received, as he alleged, by reason of the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff recovered a verdict, and the defendant assigns five errors as causes for reversal:
[1, 2] 1. The refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant because (a) testimony showed clearly and conclusively that plaintiff assumed the risk of the conditions of operation resulting in his injuries ; (b) plaintiff himself was guilty of contributory negligence.
It may…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. BurdgSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Caddo River Lumber Co. v. GroverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ramming Real Estate Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
- Atchison, T. & S. F. RY. Co. v. CondosCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932