JOSEPH D. MASTERSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a manslaughter conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to quash, for a bill of particulars, or a directed verdict, nor in refusing certain jury charges.
The appellate court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge manslaughter by culpable negligence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its procedural rulings.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter for culpable negligence in operating a vehicle, leading to a death. The defendant appealed the conviction,…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The only important question on this appeal is whether the request to charge res ipsa loquitur should have been granted.
Our own examination of the record completely satisfies us that Judge Will-son correctly held in his opinion on the motion for a new trial that “The request for charge was refused because inconsistent with the allegations in the Complaint as well as inconsistent with the position taken by plaintiff and his experienced and able counsel throughout the trial and finally because not warranted by the evidence introduced during the trial.” [169 F.Supp. 436.]
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.