Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HARRY L. HAMPSON, APPELLANT, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY AND CENTRE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the record shows that the trial judge undertook to apply the law of Ohio in instructing the jury on the principles of liability that are applicable to this products liability case. Moreover, since appellant's counsel had taken the position that on the issues contested in this case Ohio and Pennsylvania law are essentially the same, we find no basis for reversal in appellant's contention on appeal that certain differences between Ohio and Pennsylvania law were not adequately explained to the jury.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAMPSON v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY
(Jul 18, 1972)