MONTE HARRIS
v.
AFRAN TRANSPORT CO. AND MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court did not err in refusing to admit expert testimony regarding whether a waxed floor was dangerous.
A longshoreman sued for injuries sustained from slipping on a slippery floor, alleging an unsafe workplace and unseaworthiness. The jury returned a ve…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff in this case was a longshoreman employed by Harbor Ship Maintenance Company of Philadelphia. He claimed to have suffered injuries while working in an area near the vessel’s ice box when he slipped on a terra-cotta floor. The charge was that the floor was slippery and that he was, therefore, given an unsafe place to work and further that the ship was unseaworthy.
The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant thus settling the many disputed questions of fact in its favor. The appellant’s only basis for appeal is that the trial judge declined expert testimony from a witness on whether a “waxed” floor was dangerous.
There is no error in refusing this testimony. A great deal of discretion is given to the trial judge on the subject of expert testimony. See Henry, Pennsylvania Evidence 561(1953); Overman v. Loesser, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F. 2d 521, 524; cf. Conry v. Baltimore & O. R., 3 Cir., 1953, 209 F. 2d 422, 425. That discretion was not abused in this case.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustace Weekes v. Mich. Chrome & Chem. Co., 352 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1965)
-
Petition of M. & J. Tracy, Inc., 422 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1969)
-
Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lavino Shipping Co. & Royal Netherlands S.S. Co., 441 F.2d 473 (3d Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Overman v. Loesser, 205 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Conry v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 209 F.2d 422 (3d Cir. 1953)