From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malm v. United States Lines Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 5, 1967
378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967)

Summary

recognizing jury's right to "idiosyncratic position provided the challenged verdict is based on the evidence and the law"

Summary of this case from Davignon v. Hodgson

Opinion

No. 489, Docket 31199.

Argued May 31, 1967.

Decided June 5, 1967.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Edward Weinfeld, J., sitting with a jury, finding appellant negligent, and from Judge Weinfeld's opinion denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict and direct a verdict for appellant, or order a new trial.

Daniel J. Dougherty, New York City (Charles N. Fiddler, Kirlin Campbell Keating, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E.P. McElligott, Fields, Rosen, McElligott Auslander, New York City, for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.


We affirm on the basis of Judge Weinfeld's opinion in the District Court, reported at 269 F. Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

Since neither party on appeal raised the issue of maintenance and cure, we have not considered that portion of Judge Weinfeld's opinion.


Summaries of

Malm v. United States Lines Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jun 5, 1967
378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967)

recognizing jury's right to "idiosyncratic position provided the challenged verdict is based on the evidence and the law"

Summary of this case from Davignon v. Hodgson
Case details for

Malm v. United States Lines Co.

Case Details

Full title:Elof MALM, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jun 5, 1967

Citations

378 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1967)

Citing Cases

Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc.

son, 102 F.3d 85, 90 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing Heller); Arthur Pew Constr. Co. v. Lipscomb, 965 F.2d 1559,…

Webb v. Gaf Corp.

But there is no necessity for a new trial when the jury returns seemingly inconsistent verdicts with respect…