Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Co., 295 F.2d 236 (3d Cir. 1961). · Go Syfert
Anthony Barbuscia v. Reading Co., 295 F.2d 236 (3d Cir. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Courtney v. Courtney (alaska, 1975-11-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Courtney v. Courtney
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
Barbuscia v. Reading Co., 295 F.2d 236, 237 (3rd Cir. 1961) ; Miller v. Alexandria Truck Lines, Inc., 273 F.2d 897, 900-01 , opn. corr. & reh. denied, 274 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1960); Atlantic Coast Line R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony BARBUSCIA
v.
READING COMPANY, Appellant
13622_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 9, 1961.
295 F.2d 236
1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3505
Arthur R. Littleton, Philadelphia, Pa. (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, Pa. (Beasley & Ornsteen, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Goodrich, McLaughlin, Hastie.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an F.E.L.A. case. He claims permanent injury through an accident which occurred when he was stacking some lumber being torn from the ceiling of a building belonging to the defendant. The question of the believability of the plaintiff’s story was a jury question and the jury took his version in the face of a strong case to the contrary. Complaint is made of several matters which occurred in the course of the trial. One has to do with the failure to grant a continuance at the defendant’s request. Another has to do with the exclusion of proffered testimony based upon an Army medical report made seventeen years pri-[*237] or to the trial. Another has to do with whether there was anything to show contributory negligence which could have been argued to the jury. These first two objections fall within the general discretion of the trial judge who is in charge of the case. We agree that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. We do not find that here there was any reversible error.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.