Wrongful Death Under Fela

64 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Thompson v. Camp
  163 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1947-08-11 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the jury's finding of mutual mistake of fact invalidating the release was not clearly erroneous, and that the jury instructions on damages were prejudicial error.
• Boston AND Maine Railroad v. Isabelle C. Talbert
  360 F.2d 286· 1st Cir.· 1966-05-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the railroad's post-trial motions.
• ELY v. Reading Co.
  424 F.2d 758· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-09 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the FELA standard for causation and that the exclusion of expert testimony was within the trial court's discretion.
• 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.
• Powers v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  251 F.2d 813· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The court should direct judgment nunc pro tunc to allow interest from the date of the jury verdict or erroneous judgment.
• 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.
• Williams v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  190 F.2d 744· 5th Cir.· 1951-07-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the employer's duty to furnish life-saving equipment required prior warning from the employee, and in instructing that death from a heart attack would preclude liability.
• Morris v. Pa. R. Co.
  187 F.2d 837· 2d Cir.· 1951-03-14 ·cited 32×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring opinion.
• Burlington N., Inc. v. Boxberger
  529 F.2d 284· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert economist's testimony and that evidence of future income taxes should be admissible in FELA cases where the income is substantial enough for taxes to have a significant impact.
• 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
• Raudenbush v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  160 F.2d 363· 3d Cir.· 1947-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment for the defendant after a jury verdict for the plaintiff, as the case should have been submitted to the jury on the issue of headlight negligence, necessitating a new trial.
• Thomas v. Conemaugh & Black Lick R.R. Co.
  234 F.2d 429· 3d Cir.· 1956-06-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to present a jury question on negligence and causation, and that the jury's verdict was supported by an evidentiary basis, thus it could not be disturbed.
• Griswold v. Gardner
  155 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1946-05-15 ·cited 22×
• Dilley v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  327 F.2d 249· 6th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of an intra-company accident report, containing the foreman's opinion on the cause of the accident, was prejudicial error.
• New York v. Zermani
  200 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1952-12-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of negligence to the jury and that the jury's findings on damages were not excessive, nor were there reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Boston & M. R. R. v. Meech
  156 F.2d 109· 1st Cir.· 1946-06-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and that the trial court properly refused the defendant's requested jury instructions.
• 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.
• Reynolds v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  196 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1952-05-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the decedent's death.
• N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tillie Mely
  219 F.2d 199· 9th Cir.· 1954-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a jury verdict cannot be impeached by juror affidavits regarding deliberations, and that the engineer's willful violation of operating rules was the sole cause of his death, precluding recovery under FELA.
• Denver & RIO Grande W. R.R. Co. v. Conley
  293 F.2d 612· 10th Cir.· 1961-07-21 ·cited 12×
  A railroad employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace, even on tracks it does not own or maintain, and is liable for foreseeable consequences of its negligence.
• Inosencia Solorio v. The Atchison
  224 F.2d 544· 10th Cir.· 1955-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve for review her objections to the jury instructions due to non-compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, and that the defendant's closing argument was not improper.
• Foreman v. Tex. & NEW Orleans R. Co.
  205 F.2d 79· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the decedent's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his death, and the defendant railroad was not liable.
• Eglsaer v. Scandrett
  151 F.2d 562· 7th Cir.· 1945-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's finding that a defective bell ringer was the proximate cause of the engineer's death was supported by evidence and should not have been overturned by the trial court.
• Butler v. Williams
  133 So. 2d 109· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-09-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the judgment was otherwise valid, the jury's award of damages to the decedent's children was excessive and required a remittitur or a new trial on damages.
• McGLOTHAN v. Pa. R. Co.
  170 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's misstatement of evidence in its jury charge was prejudicial error requiring a new trial, and that the exclusion of evidence regarding the decedent's marital status was also prejudicial error.
• Boston & Me. R. R. v. Jesionowski
  154 F.2d 703· 1st Cir.· 1946-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was improperly applied because the instrumentality causing the injury was not within the exclusive control of the railroad.
• Hartel v. The Long Island Rail Rd. Co.
  476 F.2d 462· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence tending to establish the defendant's knowledge of hazards and in excluding evidence of prior holdups.
• Martin v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  268 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act permits recovery for the lost expectancy of inheritance as a pecuniary benefit. The trial court erred in excluding this element of damages.
• Atchison v. Wottle
  193 F.2d 628· 10th Cir.· 1952-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the deceased employee was engaged in an act constituting a necessary incident to his employment in commerce under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
• Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co.
  134 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1943-03-31 ·cited 8×
• Eiseman v. Pa. R. Co.
  151 F.2d 222· 3d Cir.· 1945-09-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the train's bell was not ringing was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court erred in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Jacklyn McKENNA v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  829 F.2d 186· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The WMATA Compact exempts WMATA from the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) because FELA is a tort remedy statute, not a safety statute, and the Compact supersedes federal law with signatory law for torts in proprietary functions.
• Tracy v. Terminal R. Ass'n of ST. Louis
  170 F.2d 635· 8th Cir.· 1948-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that excluded evidence and jury selection challenges were either irrelevant to the primary negligence issue or untimely, thus not warranting a new trial or reversal.
• Barry v. Reading Co.
  147 F.2d 129· 3d Cir.· 1944-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant should not be disturbed as there was no reversible error in the trial.
• Moody v. Boston & Me. Corp.
  921 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish foreseeability for a general negligence claim and causation for a negligence per se claim under FELA, thus affirming summary judgment.
• Baum v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  256 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was no evidence that the employer's negligence played any part in the employee's death, and therefore a directed verdict for the defendant was proper.
• Marshall v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  218 F.2d 900· 7th Cir.· 1955-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented a submissible issue of fraud regarding the release, and the trial court erred in directing a verdict.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Sweat
  183 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1950-06-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that expert testimony regarding the safety of a locomotive, based on proven facts, is admissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) and Georgia law.
• Miller v. Elgin
  177 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the doctrine of imminent peril were properly applied.
• Poff v. Pennsylvania R. R.
  150 F.2d 902· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the existence of nearer kin, regardless of dependency, bars recovery by more remote kin under the FELA. Dependency is a condition for recovery within a class, not a means to bypass nearer non-dependent kin.
• Lowden v. Burke
  129 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1942-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to justify submitting the case to the jury regarding compliance with the company's blue flag rule.
• Beulah Mae Overstreet v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  152 So. 2d 188· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-04-16 ·cited 2×
  A widow and administratrix of a railroad employee's estate sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) after her husband was killed in a tractor accident while working on the railroad's right-of-way. The railroad moved to dismiss based on a general release the widow ha
• Zappia v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  312 F.2d 62· 6th Cir.· 1963-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it was not reversible error to instruct the jury on contributory negligence and the decedent's sole negligence, even though these defenses were not explicitly pleaded by the defendant.
• S. Pac. Co. v. Heavingham
  236 F.2d 406· 9th Cir.· 1956-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably infer conscious pain and suffering from the evidence, even if the period was short, and that such issues should be left to the jury.
• Murray v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  233 F.2d 214· 4th Cir.· 1956-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the railroad's negligence to present the case to the jury.
• Massey v. Chattanooga Station Co.
  210 F.2d 167· 6th Cir.· 1954-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should have been submitted to the jury due to controverted fact issues regarding negligence.
• Hartley v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  194 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1952-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the decedent's own negligent act was the sole proximate cause of his fatal injury, affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Wendell v. Chicago
  184 F.2d 868· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was no proof of defendant's negligence sufficient to warrant submission to the jury, and a directed verdict for the defendant should have been granted.
• Fantini v. Reading Co.
  147 F.2d 543· 3d Cir.· 1945-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that without proof of the employer's negligence as the proximate cause of the employee's death, the judgment must be affirmed.
• Loree Talley Fare v. S. Ry. Co.
  438 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-16
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defective brakes and causation, and that the damages award was not excessive.