Arthur Patrick O'Hara v. Long Island Railroad Company

Second Circuit

Arthur Patrick O'Hara v. Long Island Railroad Company

665 F.2d 8, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1981

Docket244, Docket 81-7315

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 665 F.2d 8 (Arthur Patrick O'Hara v. Long Island Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Patrick O'Hara v. Long Island Railroad Company, 665 F.2d 8, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16228 (2d Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Patrick O’Hara appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, George C. Pratt, J., dismissing his second cause of action against the Long Island Railroad Company (“Railroad”) for failure to sustain a prima facie ease under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. We affirm. O’Hara, a trainman employed by the Railroad, had asserted three causes of action arising from three separate accidents. The first and third causes of action were submitted to a jury, but the parties settled before verdict was rendered. The second cause of action concerned appellant’s claim of injury through the Railroad’s negligent failure to provide a safe workplace. O’Hara maintains that he was injured when he tripped at a place where a tile was missing from the floor of the train on which he was working. He presented testimony that one tile was loose and another was missing; that at the time he fell, the train lurched; and that the train had been traveling on a temporary track at a speed of sixty miles per hour. In a memorandum and order dated March 13, 1981 and adhered to after reconsideration in a memorandum dated May 15, 1981, Judge Pratt found that appellant did not present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.

We have reviewed the record carefully, and we find that appellant’s case was deficient in two respects. First, he furnished no evidence that the Railroad had notice of the defect in the tiles. Second, plaintiff failed to offer proof that the speed at which the train was moving was too fast. While it is true that there is a strong federal policy in favor of letting juries decide FELA cases, FELA is not an insurance program. Claimants must at least offer some evidence that would support a finding of negligence.

*10 The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Patrick O’Hara appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, George C. Pratt, J., dismissing his second cause of action against the Long Island Railroad Company (“Railroad”) for failure to sustain a prima facie ease under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. We affirm. O’Hara, a trainman employed by the Railroad, had asserted three causes of action arising from three separate accidents. The first and third causes of action were submitted to a jury, but the parties settled before verdict was rendered. The second cause of action concerned appellant’s claim of injury through the Railroad’s negligent failure to provide a safe workplace. O’Hara maintains that he was injured when he tripped at a place where a tile was missing from the floor of the train on which he was working. He presented testimony that one tile was loose and another was missing; that at the time he fell, the train lurched; and that the train had been traveling on a temporary track at a speed of sixty miles per hour. In a memorandum and order dated March 13, 1981 and adhered to after reconsideration in a memorandum dated May 15, 1981, Judge Pratt found that appellant did not present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.

We have reviewed the record carefully, and we find that appellant’s case was deficient in two respects. First, he furnished no evidence that the Railroad had notice of the defect in the tiles. Second, plaintiff failed to offer proof that the speed at which the train was moving was too fast. While it is true that there is a strong federal policy in favor of letting juries decide FELA cases, FELA is not an insurance program. Claimants must at least offer some evidence that would support a finding of negligence.

*10 The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 F.2d 8, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-patrick-ohara-v-long-island-railroad-company-ca2-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack