KUHNHEIM v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, 5448.
| Citation | 38 F.2d 1015 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5448.,5448. |
| Parties | Lillie KUHNHEIM, Adm'x, etc., Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
John Ruffalo, of Youngstown, Ohio, for appellant.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Thos. M. Kirby, and Geo. H. P. Lacey, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before DENISON and MACK, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
When Kuhnheim fell, there had been no occasion for him to set the brake, but only to try it. Except in or after setting, defects in dog or ratchet could not have contributed to such a fall. Nor is it more than a possibility that a chain too long could have so contributed. Even disregarding the eyewitness' testimony, there can be only surmise that an inefficient brake caused the fall. In this respect, the case is ruled by our decision in Burnett v. Penna. Railroad Co. (C. C. A.) 33 F.(2d) 579.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radler v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...Ohio Railway v. Smith, 42 F.2d 111; McAllister v. Railway, 25 S.W.2d 795; Burnett v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 33 F.2d 680; Kuhnhein v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 38 F.2d 1015; Patton v. Texas, etc., Ry., 179 U.S. 663; etc., Railroad v. Wells, 275 U.S. 459; Atlantic Coast Line v. Davis, 279 U.S. 3......