U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1968

Jack R. Croteau v. Borden Company and Eastman Kodak Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided June 4, 1968 · McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley

395 F.2d 771; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6670 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles F.,Love, Freedman, Borowsky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., Victor L. Drexel, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dolores B. Sesso, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kellar v. Inductotherm Corp. (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1978)
Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc. (5th Cir. 1976)
Norman I. Suchomajcz, Administrator of the Estate of Norman Suchomajcz, a Minor v. Hummel Chemical Company, Newark, New Jersey (3d Cir. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*772 OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant Eastman Kodak Company entered upon a verdict directed by the district court after the close of the defendant’s case. 1 The district court held, inter alia, that Eastman Kodak’s failure to warn was not the proximate cause of an explosion which resulted in plaintiff’s loss of his left hand. See Croteau v. Borden Co., 277 F.Supp. 945 (E.D.Pa. 1968).

We have independently examined the entire record, and we can find no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

. The district court also entered judgment in favor of defendant Borden Company, but plaintiff did not appeal from this judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.