Court Opinion

ID: 9450516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:50:56.017987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:21.887709
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff sustained injuries which rendered him permanently quadriplegic when a load of corrugated paper weighing some 800 pounds toppled off a fork lift truck which he was operating and struck him on the back of his neck. The fork lift truck was not equipped with an overhead canopy guard or load back rest which are safety devices intended to protect the truck’s operator against *520falling cargo. The plaintiff sued the defendant which manufactured and supplied the fork lift truck to his employer, the Industrial Container Corporation, charging that the defendant knew or should have known that the fork lift truck was dangerous for its reasonably expected uses without the safety equipment mentioned. The jury returned a verdict of $250,000 in favor of the plaintiff on its findings that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was free of contributory negligence.
The trial judge denied the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 50(b), F.R.Civ.P. on the grounds that (1) “there is sufficient evidence with all the reasonable inferences therefrom, taken most favorably to the plaintiff, to uphold this verdict”,1
2and (2) failure by the defendant to comply with the provisions of Rule 50(a).
There is no complaint by the defendant-appellant on this appeal of any error in the trial of the case or in the trial court’s instructions to the jury. The factual issues to be resolved by the jury were correctly presented to it in precise and sharp focus by the charge of the trial court.
On review of the record we are satisfied that there was evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict.2 It would serve no useful purpose to review that evidence here. It is set forth in detail in the trial court’s careful review and analysis of the testimony. 220 F.Supp. 855, 856-861.
Our view that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was free of contributory negligence,3 and that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, makes unnecessary consideration of the second ground for the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.
For the reasons stated the Judgment of the District Court entered May 2, 1963, pursuant to the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, will be affirmed.

. The opinion of the District Court is reported at 220 F.Supp. 855 (E.D.Pa. 1963).

. Myers v. Reading Company, 331 U.S. 477, 486, 67 S.Ct. 1334, 91 L.Ed. 1615 (1947).

. The defendant conceded at the argument on his motion for judgment n. o. v. that there was no issue regarding any contributory negligence on the- part of the plaintiff.