Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NUTTER v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 1934 — 72 F.2d 982 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
NUTTER v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.
72 F.2d 982·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NUTTER v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.
No. 3678.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1934.
David D. Ashworth and Ben H. Ashworth, both of Beckley, W. Va. (W. A. Thornhill, Jr., of Beckley, W. Va., on the brief), for appellant.
C. W. Striekling, of Huntington, W. Va. (Fitzpatrick, Brown & Davis, of Huntington, W. Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an action for wrongful death brought by the administratrix of the little boy who was killed in the distressing accident described in Nutter v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 113 W. Va. 94, 166 S. E. 815. We need' not decide whether the father’s negligence was imputable to the child under the circumstances disclosed, nor whether there was error in admitting evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the father. For the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in the ease above cited, which was brought by the administratrix of the father, we think that there was no aetionable negligence on the part of the defendant railway company, and that in this ease, as well as in that, verdict was properly directed in its favor. The judgment appealed from’ will be affirmed.
Affirmed.