AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because (a) there was no proof of any violation of the Safety Appliance Acts; (b) there was no proof of negligence; and (c) there were various errors in the exclusion of evidence and in the judge's charge.
The violation of the Safety Appliance Acts which plaintiff relies on is apparently based on sections 1, 3, and 9 of title 45 of...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.