Joe F. Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company

Fifth Circuit

Joe F. Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company

644 F.2d 1147, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1981

Docket79-3965

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 644 F.2d 1147 (Joe F. Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joe F. Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 644 F.2d 1147, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13269 (5th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Soto, the plaintiff employee, but the district court entered judgment n. o. v. for his employer on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer was guilty of any negligence. An examination of the briefs and the record reveals that the judgment should be affirmed.

As related in greater detail in the district court opinion, Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., No. SA-77-CA-171 (W.D.Tex., Nov. 5, 1979), the essentially undisputed evidence in the case established that at the time of his injury Mr. Soto was dumping a rubber-tired wheelbarrow which he had loaded with trash and sand cleared from pits used for servicing the underside of diesel engines. By his own testimony he determined the size of the load he was carrying: no one was rushing him at his task and there was no reason why he should not have made the load lighter. Further, there was nothing wrong with the wheelbarrow, the shovel, or the area where the barrow was being wheeled by Mr. Soto.

The FELA is not a workers’ compensation system. Employer negligence remains a prerequisite to liability. As the district court observed in its opinion: “If this verdict stands its ... message to railroads would be that they can no longer use wheelbarrows, even when equipped with rubber tires, and that the use of such wheelbarrows is ‘unreasonable.’ ” That there were other, arguably more advanced, methods in use by the defendant for cleaning these pits is of no significance where the method in use by Mr. Soto was not an inherently unsafe one. The task at which Mr. Soto was injured was one that could be safely done by the method which he was told to use and was using.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Soto, the plaintiff employee, but the district court entered judgment n. o. v. for his employer on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer was guilty of any negligence. An examination of the briefs and the record reveals that the judgment should be affirmed.

As related in greater detail in the district court opinion, Soto v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., No. SA-77-CA-171 (W.D.Tex., Nov. 5, 1979), the essentially undisputed evidence in the case established that at the time of his injury Mr. Soto was dumping a rubber-tired wheelbarrow which he had loaded with trash and sand cleared from pits used for servicing the underside of diesel engines. By his own testimony he determined the size of the load he was carrying: no one was rushing him at his task and there was no reason why he should not have made the load lighter. Further, there was nothing wrong with the wheelbarrow, the shovel, or the area where the barrow was being wheeled by Mr. Soto.

The FELA is not a workers’ compensation system. Employer negligence remains a prerequisite to liability. As the district court observed in its opinion: “If this verdict stands its ... message to railroads would be that they can no longer use wheelbarrows, even when equipped with rubber tires, and that the use of such wheelbarrows is ‘unreasonable.’ ” That there were other, arguably more advanced, methods in use by the defendant for cleaning these pits is of no significance where the method in use by Mr. Soto was not an inherently unsafe one. The task at which Mr. Soto was injured was one that could be safely done by the method which he was told to use and was using.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 F.2d 1147, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-f-soto-v-southern-pacific-transportation-company-ca5-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack