Smith H. Taylor v. the Monongahela Railway Company, Appellant., 256 F.2d 751 (3rd Cir. 1958)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (July 14, 1958)

Docket number: 12490

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/smith-taylor-monongahela-railway-company-36668548
Id. vLex: VLEX-36668548

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Rhozier T. Brown, Jr., Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. John D. Irby, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. Robert L. Jones, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 375 F.2d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - James Thompson, Appellant in No. 14943 v. Trent Maritime Co., Ltd., Appellee in No. 14943. Appellant in No. 14913, v. B. H. Sobelman & Co., Inc., Appellee in No. 14913., 353 F.2d 632 (3rd Cir. 1965)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Vincent E. Jenkins, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 307 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; John W. McIlvaine, Judge.

John David Rhodes, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Albert D. Brandon, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Frederic G. Weir, Calvin K. Prine, Oliver, Brandon & Shearer, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In an action by an employee of the defendant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., the jury found in his favor and awarded damages of $45,000.00. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied and this appeal followed.

The issues presented are whether certain medical testimony was properly admitted and whether the District Court properly charged the jury with respect to future medical and hospital expenses.

On review of the record we find no basic or prejudicial error in the admission of the medical testimony complained of or in the District Court's instructions to the jury with respect to future medical and hospital expenses.

The Order of the District Court, 155 F.Supp. 601, denying defendant's motion for a new trial will be affirmed.