Skip to main content
· 4/27/1910

Stewart v. Brune

Citations

  • 179 F. 350
  • 102 C.C.A. 534
  • 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4645

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal and Error (§ 1031*) — Review—Harmless Error — Presumptions as to Effect of Error.</p> <p>The presumption always is that error produces prejudice, and it is only when it appears so clear as to be beyond doubt that the error challenged did not prejudice, and could not have prejudiced, the complaining party, that the rule that error without prejudice is no ground for reversal is applicable.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4038-4046; Dec. Dig. § 1031.*]</p> <p>2. Trial (§ 110*) — Reception of Evidence — Misconduct of Counsel.</p> <p>In an action by an employé to recover for a personal injury, it was prejudicial error to permit plaintiff’s counsel on the examination of a juror to ask questions the evident purpose and effect of which were to convey to the jury a strong intimation that defendant was insured against such liabilities, and that the insurance company was the real party in interest as defendant, contrary to what appeared from the record.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 271; Dec. Dig. § 110.*]</p> <p>3. Master and Servant (§§ 217, 238*) — Master’s Liability for Injury to Servant — Negligence of Servant — Assumption of Risk.</p> <p>Plaintiff, who was a licensed engineer with several years’ experience in operating derricks, was operating a derrick for defendants in pulling sheet piling, used in constructing the foundation of a building, when he was injured by the breaking of an eyebolt to which one of the guy ropes of the mast was attached. The derrick was of a common and usual construction, practically new, and was sound, including the eyebolt, and being used for an ordinary purpose. It was shown that the amount of power applied to a. piling was left wholly to plaintiff’s control, and that, if after one pull the piling did not come out, it was cut off and left in the ground. Held, that if, as he alleged, the derrick and eyebolt were being at the time subjected to an excessive strai

Judges: Riner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.