From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 19, 1948
165 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 9526.

Argued January 9, 1948.

Decided January 19, 1948.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Robert M. Gibson, Judge.

Action by Arthur Bickart against the Union Barge Line Corporation for injuries sustained as a seaman. Judgment for plaintiff, 75 F. Supp. 572, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 6 F.R.D. 579.

John R. Bredin, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dalzell, McFall, Pringle Bredin, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Hymen Schlesinger, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff in a civil action for personal injuries brought by a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence was sufficient to raise issues for the jury as to the negligence of the defendant, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the validity of a release alleged to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant. These issues were submitted to the jury in a charge to which no objection is made and were resolved in the plaintiff's favor. We find no error in the record.

The judgment will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 19, 1948
165 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1948)
Case details for

Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation

Case Details

Full title:BICKART v. UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jan 19, 1948

Citations

165 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1948)

Citing Cases

United States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc.

The government's position amounts to nothing more than mere suspicion, and this is insufficient to impeach a…

Shushereba v. R.B. Industries, Inc.

It has been long recognized that a mere suspicion that the jury did not follow the court's instructions is an…