Case Name: Joseph D. MASTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-05-05
Citations: 266 F.2d 1
Docket Number: No. 12813
Parties: Joseph D. MASTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 266
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
Joseph D. MASTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12813.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 10, 1959.
Decided May 5, 1959.
Samuel T. Gaines, Cleveland, Ohio (Fred B. Sieber, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
William F. Illig, Erie, Pa. (Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, Irving Murphy, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only important question on this appeal is whether the request to charge res ipsa loquitur should have been granted.
Our own examination of the record completely satisfies us that Judge Will-son correctly held in his opinion on the motion for a new trial that "The request for charge was refused because inconsistent with the allegations in the Complaint as well as inconsistent with the position taken by plaintiff and his experienced and able counsel throughout the trial and finally because not warranted by the evidence introduced during the trial." [169 F.Supp. 436.]
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.