Preiser Scientific, Inc., of Ohio, a Corporation v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Preiser Scientific, Inc., of Kentucky, a Corporation v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Opinion
432 F.2d 1002
PREISER SCIENTIFIC, INC., OF OHIO, a corporation, Appellant, v. PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Appellee. PREISER SCIENTIFIC, INC., OF KENTUCKY, a corporation, Appellant. v. PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Appellee.
No. 14445.
No. 14446.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 5, 1970.
Donald R. Wilson, Charleston, W. Va. (Preiser, Greene, Hunt & Wilson, Charleston, W. Va., on brief) for appellant.
Edward W. Eardley and John R. Fowler, Charleston, W. Va. (Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, W. Va., on brief) for appellee.
Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
The plaintiff in each of these diversity actions sought to recover damages for the loss of services of its employee which loss was alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant in the crash of one of defendant's airplanes in which the employees were killed. The defendant filed motions to dismiss.
2
In a written Memorandum Order the district court discussed the authorities and sustained the motions to dismiss on the ground that "neither of the plaintiff corporations has any cause of action growing out of the death of its employee, either at common law or under the statutes of West Virginia."
3
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs filed by the parties, and the decision of the court below, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm.
4
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming the district court’s finding that each of the plaintiff corporations lacked a cause of action ‘either at common law or under the statutes of West Virginia’ in a case alleging ‘loss of [employee] services’ as a result of defendant’s negligence)
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.