From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay v. Greyhound Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Feb 15, 1960
275 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1960)

Opinion

Nos. 13042-13045.

Argued February 5, 1960.

Decided February 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.


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.


Summaries of

Clay v. Greyhound Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Feb 15, 1960
275 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1960)
Case details for

Clay v. Greyhound Corporation

Case Details

Full title:Fred CLAY, Jr., by His Father and Natural Guardian, Fred Clay, Sr., and…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Feb 15, 1960

Citations

275 F.2d 41 (3d Cir. 1960)

Citing Cases

United States v. Manos

However, if the appellant wished to correct this portion of the court's charge and put the same in the light…