Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Fred Clay, Jr., by His Father and Natural Guardian, Fredclay, Sr., and Fred Clay, Sr., in His Own Right, Appellantin No. 13,042, Richard H. Young, Administrator of Estate Ofemma Mosby, Deceased, Appellant in No. 13,043, Mary Belleclay, Administratrix of Estate of Dock H. Mosby, Deceased,appellant in No. 13,044, Geneva Snuggs, Administratrix Ofestate of John Henry Snuggs, Deceased, Appellant in No. 13,045, v. Greyhound Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (defendant Andthird Party Plaintiff), v. Maggie Ellison,administratrix of Estate of Samuelellison, Deceased (third Partydefendant)
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 275 F.2d 41
Argued Feb. 5, 1960.Decided Feb. 15, 1960
Dennis C. Harrington, Pittsburgh, Pa. (McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Harold E. McCamey, Pittsburgh, Pa. (David H. Trushel, and Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Greyhound Corp.
Before GOODRICH, HASTIE and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These are several appeals by unsuccessful plaintiffs in personal injury suits which followed a disastrous accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in July, 1955. The appellants now say that, although no objection was made to the instructions of the trial judge, he committed grave and fundamental error in that he did not charge the jury on concurrent causes in terms of our decision in Kendrick v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 3 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 482. We have noted the facts of the case and we have examined the charge of the trial judge. We see no basis for invoking the rule that even in spite of absence of objection taken at the time fundamental errors which impair the fairness of the result reached at the trial will be corrected on appeal. The case was fairly tried and the jury returned a considered verdict.
The judgment will be affirmed.