Hampson v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY
| Decision Date | 18 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1754.,71-1754. |
| Citation | 464 F.2d 562 |
| Parties | Harry L. HAMPSON, Appellant, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY and Centre Foundry and Machine Company, a corporation. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Milton D. Rosenberg, Bloom, Bloom, Rosenberg & Bloom, Washington, Pa., and Jon L. Friedman, Friedman & Friedman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Charles Kirshner, Rosenberg, Kirshner & Solomon; Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before HASTIE, GIBBONS and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
Submitted June 8, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant's counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant's contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury.
The judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Video Innovations, Inc.
...Inc., 391 F.2d 150, 155 n. 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 826, 89 S.Ct. 86, 21 L.Ed.2d 96 (1968); Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 464 F.2d 562, 563 (3d Cir.1972); Petersen v. Chicago, G.W. Ry. Co., 138 F.2d 304, 306-07 (8th Cir.1943). As a matter of fact, as supplemental briefs requested ......
-
Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.
...position of the party seeking relief. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Hester, 765 F.2d 723 (8th Cir.1985); Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 464 F.2d 562, 563 (3d Cir.1972) (per curiam); cf. Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152, 154, 84 S.Ct. 1157, 1159, 12 L.Ed.2d 206 (1964) (per curiam) (improper a......
-
Vista West, Inc. v. North American Philips Corp.
...States, 421 F.2d 212, 215 (4th Cir.1970) (an appellant "is precluded from complaining of errors invited by it"); Hampson v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 464 F.2d 562, 563 (3d Cir.1972) that equitable estoppel does not require a showing of unjust enrichment or unconscionable injury. Moreover, "the exis......
- Meggett v. Wainwright, 80-5436