Logo


Opinions Statutes Gpo Uploaded documents Links Lawyers Questions
Team    

   Search  




Citation: 226 F.2d 909 empty empty empty empty empty
Neutral citation: 1955 US App (4th) 117 0 votes
Legal status: Opinion 14 visits
Jurisdiction: Fourth Circuit
Decision date: Friday, 4 November 1955
Tags related to the opinion:  no Tags
Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case
Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Page 1, , 1

226 F.2d 909

E. J. PONTIFEX, and Judith Rae Pontifex, an infant, who sues by E. J. Pontifex, her father, as next friend, Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Incorporated, Appellee.

No. 7009.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 10, 1955.

Decided November 4, 1955.

Louis B. Fine, Norfolk, Va. (Howard I. Legum, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Thomas H. Willcox, Jr., and Thomas H. Willcox, Norfolk, Va. (Willcox, Cooke & Willcox, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant in a personal injury case. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck in the eye by a rope pulled to start the gasoline engine of a lawn mower. Plaintiff contends that there was negligence in the design of the lawn mower in that the rope was not permanently attached to a spring recoil mechanism, such as is found in the latest models of these machines, and that no warning was given of the danger of using it. We do not think, however, that it can be held to be negligence to sell an old model machine not equipped with a safety device of later models, and we find no evidence of negligence in the design or construction of the machine or of any need for warning or of any other negligence upon which a verdict for plaintiff could have been based.

Affirmed.

____________________

delicius digg reddit stumbleupon google yahoo technorati slashdot

feedback

invite a friend

         


Provide a new tag:

Rate opinion importance:
Vote: full empty empty empty empty     
full full empty empty empty
full full full empty empty
full full full full empty
full full full full full

 Opinions last viewed:
   226 F.2d 909

 Personal comment:
 
 



© 2008 PreCYdent, Inc. - About PreCYdent - Advertise with us - F.A.Q. - How to cite us

All cases and statutes published on this site are in the Public Domain