Safe Place To Work Doctrine

69 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mallory Johnson Allen
  67 Fla. 257· Fla.· 1914-03-27 ·cited 64×
  A railroad employee injured when struck by an electric trolley wire sued the railroad for negligence, claiming the railroad allowed the electric company to hang the wire dangerously low. The railroad sought to use the employee's prior settlement with the electric company as a com
• Bridger v. Union Ry. Co.
  355 F.2d 382· 6th Cir.· 1966-02-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting opinion testimony from experienced railroad employees regarding the dangerous nature of the crossing, evidence of prior similar accidents, and police accident reports, nor in rejecting evidence of compliance with munici
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Casura
  234 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the judgment against both defendants is affirmed, the railway company is entitled to indemnity from Swift & Company because Swift's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Thompson v. Calmar S.S. Corp.
  331 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-15 ·cited 56×
• McGIVERN v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.
  132 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1942-12-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the defendant railway company was not negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work or adequate tools for snow and ice removal, and therefore, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant was correct.
• Cookingham v. United States
  184 F.2d 213· 3d Cir.· 1950-09-20 ·cited 53×
  The failure to provide a safe place to work does not afford an independent ground for recovery for an injured seaman without proof of negligence or unseaworthiness.
• Wetherbee v. Elgin
  191 F.2d 302· 7th Cir.· 1951-05-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was arbitrary and capricious due to a failure to diminish damages for contributory negligence and that the actuary's calculations for damages were improperly admitted.
• Terminal R. Ass'n of ST. Louis v. Fitzjohn
  165 F.2d 473· 8th Cir.· 1948-01-07 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and in submitting the question of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence to the j
• Thomson v. Boles
  123 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence, and the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's position, the bridge's construction status, and alleged counsel misconduct did not warrant reversal.
• S. Pac. Co. v. Guthrie
  180 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1949-12-30 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding that there was sufficient evidence of negligence for the jury to consider and that appellate courts generally do not review the excessiveness of damages unless there is evidence of passion or prejudice.
• Sears v. S. Pac. Co.
  313 F.2d 498· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-22 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence showing the defendant's prior knowledge of the hazard was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Neese
  216 F.2d 772· 4th Cir.· 1954-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the railroad's negligence to go to the jury, but the jury's award of damages was excessive and unsupported by the record.
• Detroit v. Banning
  173 F.2d 752· 6th Cir.· 1949-04-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in submitting the claim of negligence based on muddy working conditions to the jury, but was correct in submitting the claim of excessive speed. Because the jury returned a general verdict, a new trial is required.
• Payne v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  309 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1962-10-31 ·cited 34×
  A railroad employer has a non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees under FELA, and cannot escape liability by contractually shifting maintenance duties to another party.
• Putnam Lumber Co. v. Berry
  146 Fla. 595· Fla.· 1941-04-15 ·cited 32×
  R.L. Berry sued Putnam Lumber Company, Joe Rauleson, and Dewey Adkinson for personal injuries when a logging rig tree fell on him while loading logs. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $12,000 judgment for Berry, holding that an employer remains liable for workplace safety even
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Kan. GAS & Elec. Co.
  862 F.2d 796· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Industrial Track Agreement clearly obligated KG&E to indemnify MoPac for the employee's injury, that the settlement was reasonable, and that MoPac was entitled to prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees.
• Crane v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  731 F.2d 1042· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on damages, as the issue of contributory negligence was separable from damages and the damages award was not tainted. However, the court affirmed the district court's discretion to order a new tr
• Duncan v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  480 F.2d 79· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the railroad's negligence, that counsel's comments on witness credibility and failure to call witnesses were permissible, and that the jury instructions regarding operating rules, future earnings, and present value were proper.
• Chicago v. Lint
  217 F.2d 279· 8th Cir.· 1954-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to give specific jury instructions that clarified the defendant's theory of the case, specifically that the employer is not an insurer and liability depends on the exercise of due care, not merely the occurrence of an accident.
• Cahill v. The NEW York
  224 F.2d 637· 2d Cir.· 1955-07-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant because the plaintiff's injury was not caused by any negligence of the defendant, but solely by the negligence of a third-party truck driver.
• Brown v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co.
  650 F.2d 159· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of state railroad rules, even if not strictly applicable, was proper as evidence bearing on the common law standard of care in a FELA action, and that the refusal of the defendant's requested jury instruction was also proper as it misstated FELA
• Fleming v. Kellett
  167 F.2d 265· 10th Cir.· 1948-03-22 ·cited 18×
• Peninsular Tel. Co. v. Dority
  128 Fla. 106· Fla.· 1937-04-26 ·cited 18×
  Peninsular Telephone Company appeals a $12,500 verdict to an injured lineman under Florida's Hazardous Occupation Act, claiming the employee was negligent in failing to inspect the telephone pole before climbing it. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment conditionally, holding t
• Kendrick v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  669 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 16×
  This case involves an appeal from a quiet title action where the appellants argued the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, Urbanek, who had improperly conveyed the property.
• Sullivan v. Shell OIL Co.
  234 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-20 ·cited 16×
  An owner-occupier owes a duty to employees of an independent contractor to warn of latent dangers known or discoverable by reasonable care, and the question of whether such a danger was obvious or discoverable is typically a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law.
• Renaldi v. The NEW York
  230 F.2d 841· 2d Cir.· 1956-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or damages.
• Highfill v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.
  154 F.2d 874· 6th Cir.· 1946-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The District Court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant railroad company.
• Eaton v. The Long Island Rail Rd. Co.
  398 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence of employer negligence to justify submitting the case to the jury.
• Matson Navigation Co. v. Hansen
  132 F.2d 487· 9th Cir.· 1942-12-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the seaman was injured due to working in an unsafe place.
• Cuyahoga Wrecking Corp. & Gray Line Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Mastres
  368 So. 2d 380· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the 'no-conflicting agreements' clause is not a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the filing of a lawsuit to enforce such a clause, when not a tactic to restrain employee rights, is not an unfair labor practice.
• Carter v. Union R.R. Co.
  438 F.2d 208· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 12×
• Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Federico Marin Gutierrez
  301 F.2d 415· 1st Cir.· 1962-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the shipowner was not liable for injuries sustained by a longshoreman on a dock due to spilled cargo, as the condition on the dock did not constitute unseaworthiness of the vessel and the shipowner lacked control over the dock.
• Hawley v. Alaska S.S. Co.
  236 F.2d 307· 9th Cir.· 1956-08-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of the defendant's negligence, and therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for insufficiency of evidence.
• Steed v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co.
  529 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-05 ·cited 10×
  A directed verdict for the railroad (Central) against the track owner (Riegel) for indemnity was proper, as Riegel's failure to maintain the track caused the injury, and the indemnity agreement covered such omissions.
• Foerman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  279 So. 2d 825· Fla.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a railroad employee's negligence complaint brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained when a telephone provided by the employer was struck by lightning. The court held that the complaint con
• Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., Inc.
  784 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a cause of action under § 905(b) against the employer for negligence, as the negligence was that of a fellow employee and not imputable to the vessel owner as a separate entity.
• Butler v. Smith
  104 So. 2d 868· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-07-22 ·cited 8×
  A railroad flagman injured during a company-ordered fitness test sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The trial court allowed the jury to focus on whether the test itself was unlawful and prompted by animus rather than the key issue of whether the test location was re
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Smith
  228 F.2d 180· 8th Cir.· 1955-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of a causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury, and that the defendant had sufficient notice of the defective walkway.
• Dearing v. Reese
  519 So. 2d 761· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-02-10 ·cited 7×
  Daniel Dearing sued his employer Stuart Reese for negligence after suffering a herniated disc while moving a dishwasher at a renovation job. The trial court directed a verdict for Reese, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence raised a jury question on whether
• Millie Vecchio v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  328 F.2d 714· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the landowner had a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work for contractor employees, even for hazards incidental to the work, if the landowner knew or should have known of accelerating corrosion.
• Smith v. Acadia Overseas Freighters
  202 F.2d 141· 3d Cir.· 1953-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to support the lower court's findings and that a new trial was necessary to properly develop the evidence and make consistent findings.
• Tombigbee Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Hollingsworth
  162 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1947-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by competent evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its instructions or rulings.
• Fitzsimmons v. A. J. Cesery & Co.
  61 Fla. 199· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 6×
  An employee was injured when a scaffold he was working on collapsed after his employer's foreman directed workers to raise one end using an unsafe makeshift method. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the defendant, holding that a jury question exist
• Bryant v. Nat'l Transp. Corp. & Nat'l Shipping & Trading Corp.
  467 F.2d 139· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to a shore-based worker supervising the repair of substantial ship structures using contractor-owned equipment, nor does the shipowner owe a duty to provide a safe workspace when the contractor retains control of the repair operation.
• Frizzell v. Wabash R. Co.
  199 F.2d 153· 8th Cir.· 1952-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant railroad was not negligent in furnishing set-offs, insufficient help, or an unsafe place to work, and therefore the directed verdict for the defendant was proper.
• Coyle Lines, Inc. v. Dugas
  196 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1952-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff in a Jones Act wrongful death claim.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Pruitt
  396 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1968-06-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the owner's duty to warn of latent dangers and correctly refused to submit contributory negligence or reduce the judgment for workers' compensation benefits.
• Kareem Yehia v. Rouge Steel Corp.
  898 F.2d 1178· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The giving of the Peymann instruction was harmless error because the jury's verdict was based on a finding that the vessel was not unseaworthy, not on the Peymann instruction itself.
• Leighton Empey v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  869 F.2d 293· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 2×
  An employee injured while using employer-provided housing is within the scope of employment under FELA, and a railroad has a non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace, allowing imputation of third-party negligence.
• Dischner v. United States
  866 F.2d 293· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal based on the discretionary function exception of the FTCA should be reconsidered in light of new precedent.