This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sturm (P) was injured while employed by D. P sued and alleged that a brake used by D was inefficient and was the proximate result of his injuries. D's evidence showed the opposite was true. Neither party moved for a directed verdict at the close of evidence, and the issue was submitted to the jury with no exceptions taken by the trial judge's charges to the jury. Judgment was entered for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.