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
Eric Mcnello v. John B. Kelly, Inc., Appellant, v. B. J. Lucarelli and Company, Inc. (third-party Defendant)
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 303 F.2d 29
Argued April 24, 1962 Decided May 2, 1962
Norman Paul Harvey, Philadelphia, Pa. (John J. McDevitt, 3rd, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Benjamin Pomerantz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Raymond Schwartz, Sheldon Kapustin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, FORMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered for the plaintiff on a jury verdict of $20,000. in a second trial of a personal injury case. An earlier recovery had been set aside by this court. McNello v. John B. Kelly, 3 Cir. 1960, 283 F.2d 96. In ordering a new trial we ruled that the evidence at the first trial sufficed to create a jury question whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct might cause such harm as in fact resulted. It has been ably argued that the plaintiff's case on second trial did not contain certain evidence relevant to foreseeability that was introduced at the first trial and, therefore, that a jury case was not made out. The plaintiff's case on second trial was not a strong one but, under our ruling on first appeal, we think it was enough to warrant submission to the jury. No other point requires discussion.
The judgment will be affirmed.