Safe Place To Work Doctrine

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

• Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands S.S. Co.
  622 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the shipowner's duty to provide a safe place to work was misleading and did not accurately reflect the limited duty owed by a shipowner to an independent stevedore's employees.
• Siegrist v. Delaware
  263 F.2d 616· 2d Cir.· 1959-02-18 ·cited 2×
• P. v. Murray
  229 F.2d 644· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to infer employer negligence under FELA.
• Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  277 So. 2d 578· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-04-26 ·cited 1×
  Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, an employee of a railroad sued for injuries sustained when he struck his head on a brake platform while climbing between coupled cars on a repair track. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the plaintiff
• Cook v. CSX Transp., Inc.
  557 F. Supp. 2d 1367· M.D. Fla.· 2008-05-08
  The court held that the plaintiff presented genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, thus denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
• Speese v. United States
  440 F.2d 1164· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-24
  The court held that the government, as shipowner, was not liable for the injuries sustained by a contractor's employee when the ship was under the exclusive control of an independent contractor for repairs, absent evidence the government retained control over safety precautions.
• Bowlin v. The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co.
  310 F.2d 372· 3d Cir.· 1962-11-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as amplified by the pretrial statement, sufficiently alleged negligence to allow the case to proceed to trial.
• Shaw v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & S. Ry. Co.
  238 F.2d 525· 4th Cir.· 1956-11-07
  The court held that the deceased conductor's own actions, not the railroads' conduct, were the sole cause of his death, barring recovery.
• Woodington v. The Pa. R.R. Co. & S. J. Groves & Sons Co., Inc.
  236 F.2d 760· 2d Cir.· 1956-08-22
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction regarding the railroad's duty to operate trains at speeds allowing them to stop within the operator's vision was potentially erroneous and required reversal.
• Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Lillyan McAMIS
  220 F.2d 683· 6th Cir.· 1955-04-06
  The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of negligence and proximate causation to submit the issue to the jury.
• Chicago v. Gill
  217 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-02
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence regarding the employer's negligence and causation.
• Atchison v. Studer
  213 F.2d 250· 9th Cir.· 1954-05-21
  The court held that a jury could reasonably find the carrier negligent for using a refrigerator car for lengthy, heavy pipe, despite the absence of a slippery floor.
• Mulligan v. E. S. S. Lines, Inc.
  170 F.2d 882· 2d Cir.· 1948-11-30
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence for the jury to consider and that the appellant was not immune from suit under the Clarification Act.
• Francis v. Seas Shipping Co., Inc.
  158 F.2d 584· 2d Cir.· 1946-12-16
  The court held that the jury could properly find the shipowner negligent for a cluttered deck that aggravated a pre-existing condition, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding evidence and jury instructions.