Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair

183 So. 2d 257
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 1966·No. No. 65-511·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act case (45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.), the principal question presented is whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error when he charged the jury upon the issue of future pain and suffering. We find that the record contains evidence to support a charge upon the issue. See Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 557; Alamo v. Del Rosario, 69 App.D.C. 47, 98 F.2d 328 (1938). See also Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U.S. 107, 80 S.Ct. 173, 4 L.Ed.2d 142 (1959).

A second point urges error because of a charge on loss of earnings. Appellant has failed to establish that the issue was not presented by the evidence.

Affirmed.

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

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair, 183 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

183 So. 2d 257 (Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp.
361 U.S. 107 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith
155 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Alamo v. Del Rosario
98 F.2d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)