Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided December 27, 1948No. 9598Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMinton, Circuit Judge

I concur in so much of the opinion as does not deal with the instructions. I think the instructions confused the jury and did not fully and correctly state the law. One cannot read this record, it seems to me, without reaching the conclusion that the evidence clearly preponderated in favor of the plaintiff, and the instructions misled the jury to a wrong result. I think the jury was confused and misled' by the instructions into believing it could not infer negligence from the breaking of the coupler but had to find that the breaking of the coupler was a question of whether the defendant had…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. GotschallSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Krug v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
  4. Memphis Press-Scimitar Co. v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API