George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange

Fourth Circuit

George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange

814 F.2d 157, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 1987

Docket84-1185

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 814 F.2d 157 (George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange, 814 F.2d 157, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771 (4th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company appeals from a judgment entered against it after a jury verdict in the sum of $196,800 in favor of George Aldridge in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) suit. 45 [158]*158U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1982). Aldridge, a railroad crossing guard employed by the Railroad Company, was struck by an intoxicated motorist who deliberately crossed in front of a railroad engine partially blocking a crossing in Cumberland, Maryland. After a judgment on a jury verdict in his favor, the Railroad appealed to this court raising numerous grounds for reversal, including its principal contentions that it was not negligent, and that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that they must reduce Aldridge’s damages to their present value, even in the absence of any trial evidence of present value.

A panel of this court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Aldridge v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 789 F.2d 1061 (4th Cir.1986) We granted the Railroad’s petition for rehearing en banc and now, after rehearing, again affirm. A majority of the en banc court, consisting of Judges Phillips, Sprouse, Ervin, Wilkinson, and Wilkins affirm the district court’s ruling that the jury’s finding of negligence on the part of the Railroad was sufficiently supported by the evidence. Judges Russell, Widener, Hall, and Chapman voted to reverse that holding. A majority of the en banc court consisting of Judges Hall, Phillips, Sprouse, Wilkinson, and Wilkins voted under the circumstances of this case to affirm the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury to reduce Aldridge’s damages to present value. Judges Hall, Sprouse, Wilkinson, and Wilkins would affirm this holding on the reasoning of the original panel opinion. Judge Phillips concurs in this result for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion.

The judgment of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company appeals from a judgment entered against it after a jury verdict in the sum of $196,800 in favor of George Aldridge in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) suit. 45 [158]*158U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1982). Aldridge, a railroad crossing guard employed by the Railroad Company, was struck by an intoxicated motorist who deliberately crossed in front of a railroad engine partially blocking a crossing in Cumberland, Maryland. After a judgment on a jury verdict in his favor, the Railroad appealed to this court raising numerous grounds for reversal, including its principal contentions that it was not negligent, and that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that they must reduce Aldridge’s damages to their present value, even in the absence of any trial evidence of present value.

A panel of this court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Aldridge v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 789 F.2d 1061 (4th Cir.1986) We granted the Railroad’s petition for rehearing en banc and now, after rehearing, again affirm. A majority of the en banc court, consisting of Judges Phillips, Sprouse, Ervin, Wilkinson, and Wilkins affirm the district court’s ruling that the jury’s finding of negligence on the part of the Railroad was sufficiently supported by the evidence. Judges Russell, Widener, Hall, and Chapman voted to reverse that holding. A majority of the en banc court consisting of Judges Hall, Phillips, Sprouse, Wilkinson, and Wilkins voted under the circumstances of this case to affirm the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury to reduce Aldridge’s damages to present value. Judges Hall, Sprouse, Wilkinson, and Wilkins would affirm this holding on the reasoning of the original panel opinion. Judge Phillips concurs in this result for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion.

The judgment of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 F.2d 157, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-o-aldridge-and-daisy-m-aldridge-v-baltimore-and-ohio-railroad-ca4-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack