Blazosseck v. Remington & Sherman Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1905
• Docket Number: 29.
• Citation: 141 F. 1022
• Parties: BLAZOSSECK v. REMINGTON & SHERMAN CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

141 F. 1022

BLAZOSSECK v. REMINGTON & SHERMAN CO.

No. 29.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

December 23, 1905

George Demming, for plaintiff.

Frank P. Prichard, for defendant.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

That the plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence, whereby his present unfortunate condition was produced, I have personally little doubt, but the jury was of a different opinion, and I cannot say that the facts were so clear and undisputed that the question should have been decided by the court as a matter of law. Upon both questions-- the defendant's negligence being the other-- it seemed to me that the testimony would have amply justified a verdict for the defendant, but I have no disposition to interfere with the jury's right to take a different view, since the evidence was certainly conflicting, and the settlement of the dispute belonged properly to that tribunal.

Entertaining this question, I do not see my way to grant a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict is inadequate.

The motions for new trial, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, are refused.