Michael W. Hurley v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Company, a Body Corporate

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that railroad employee failed to pro- duce expert testimony or other evidence to support his claim that the railroad maintained inadequate lighting for the safe operation of a lathe
• affirming directed verdict in favor of railroad because the plaintiffs evidence was such that “the jury could have reached a verdict in his favor only by speculating”
• “Given the evidence presented, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff ... was the sole proximate cause of the accident.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).