Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Francis T. Ratigan v. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commodities, Inc., and the Troy Union Railroad Company, Appellee-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 5, 1961No. 26217_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFriendly, Circuit Judge

I join in affirming Ratigan’s judgment against the New York Central and the dismissal of the Central’s second and third cross-claims, for the reasons stated by Judge MEDINA; as to the Central’s first cross-claim I would grant a new trial.

We must assume the jury, which deliberated more than four hours, intended its answers to be consistent. It had been instructed as to the difference between active and passive negligence — perhaps not, as my brother MEDINA observes, with pristine clarity, but in a way to which no one had objected and which sufficiently conveyed a distinction so inherently…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge (Lloyd Royal) S. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. E. F. Drew & Co. v. ReinhardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  3. Kirby H. Jackson and Robert L. Phinney v. C. E. King and Juanita M. KingCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  4. Francisco Romero, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  5. Elsie McDonnell Guardian of the Estate of Ronald McDonnell and Elsie McDonnell Individually v. Jeanette TimmermanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1959

10 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