Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair

183 So. 2d 257

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1966

DocketNo. 65-511

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 2d 257 (Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Blair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-east-coast-railway-co-v-blair-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack