Scribd
Upload
10 views2 pages

Endre Nielsen v. Charles Kurz & Co., Inc., 295 F.2d 692, 2d Cir. (1961)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiff, a seaman, sued a shipowner for damages from personal injuries sustained onboard but the jury found for the defendant. While there was some evidence of negligence, it was not conclusive. The plaintiff also failed to properly object to the judge's jury instructions. The court found that the jury instructions and trial were fair overall. Excluding some cumulative hospital photos of the plaintiff's injuries after the fact was also not considered an error. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendant shipowner.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
10 views2 pages

Endre Nielsen v. Charles Kurz & Co., Inc., 295 F.2d 692, 2d Cir. (1961)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiff, a seaman, sued a shipowner for damages from personal injuries sustained onboard but the jury found for the defendant. While there was some evidence of negligence, it was not conclusive. The plaintiff also failed to properly object to the judge's jury instructions. The court found that the jury instructions and trial were fair overall. Excluding some cumulative hospital photos of the plaintiff's injuries after the fact was also not considered an error. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendant shipowner.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

295 F.

2d 692

Endre NIELSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.
CHARLES KURZ & CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 43, Docket 26839.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


Argued Oct. 11, 1961.
Decided Oct. 31, 1961.

Charles A. Ellis, New York City (Silas B. Axtell, New York City, on the
brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas Coyne, of Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, for
defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a seaman suing a shipowner for damages for personal injuries


sustained on shipboard, has had the misfortune to have his course barred by a
jury verdict for the defendant after a trial which we find to have been fair.
While there was some evidence tending to show negligence or unseaworthiness
of the ship, it was not conclusive; moreover, the plaintiff cannot now attack the
verdict as based on insufficient evidence, since he failed to make a motion for a
directed verdict. Contorno v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana S.A., 2 Cir., 278
F.2d 719. His chief attack is upon the judge's charge, various portions of which
he wrenches from context to give an appearance of error. Viewed as a whole we
think the charge appropriate. Doubtless the wording could have been improved
here and there, but the general submission to the jury was fair. Moreover,
plaintiff did not aid the judge at the time by pointing out objections now
pressed; his sole objection to the charge was on an insignificant detail as to the
judge's recital of the facts. His present criticisms are not of such kind as to
justify overlooking the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 of timely objection.
Since the jury never reached the question of damages and the evidence was at

most cumulative, the exclusion of the seven photographs showing plaintiff


lying in a hospital after his injury was not error. Mirabile v. New York Central
R. Co., 2 Cir., 230 F.2d 498, 500.
Affirmed.

You might also like