Legal Opinion

Henry L. Forgason v. Penrod Drilling Company

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided April 4, 1969No. 26186_1PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Forgason, an employee of Superior Casing Crews, was injured while working on Penrod Drilling Company’s Rig Number 52 when a piece of tubing that he and another worker were carrying to a pipe rack fell and fractured his big toe. The jury found that the rig was seaworthy and that Penrod was not negligent. The district court awarded judgment for Pen-rod on this verdict. Forgason raises numerous points in this appeal. None is meritorious.

Forgason complains that various instructions were not given to the jury and that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. His attorney made no objections to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Theodore Gladden v. P. Henderson & Co. v. Lavino Shipping Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  2. Srybnik v. EpsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
  3. William H. Jefferson v. Taiyo Katun, K. K.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  4. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Gerald NathanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
  5. Martin v. N. V. Koninklyke Neder-Landsche Stoomboot MaatschappijDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1966

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Charles R. Little, Cross-Appellee v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  2. House of Koscot Development Corporation v. American Line Cosmetics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  3. Charles R. Little, Cross-Appellee v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API