Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

216 So. 2d 779, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4743

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1968

DocketNo. 68-538

StatusPublished

This text of 216 So. 2d 779 (Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.) 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

Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 216 So. 2d 779, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4743 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was employed by an independent contractor on road maintenance of the appellee’s railroad. While working along with employees of the railroad company, under supervision of its foreman, the appellant was injured in performing a directed duty. He filed action against the railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., to recover damages for his injuries, and takes this appeal from a judgment for defendant entered on a directed verdict. We find error and reverse.

The appellant had employee status entitling him to sue under F.E.L.A. (Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U.S. 326, 78 [780]*780S.Ct. 758, 2 L.Ed.2d 799), and we hold, on authority of Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 77 S.Ct. 443, 352 U.S. 500, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, that the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether employer negligence played a part in producing the .appellant’s injury. See also Conner v. Butler, 361 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 21, 4 L.Ed.2d 10 (reversing Conner v. Butler, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 183).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was employed by an independent contractor on road maintenance of the appellee’s railroad. While working along with employees of the railroad company, under supervision of its foreman, the appellant was injured in performing a directed duty. He filed action against the railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., to recover damages for his injuries, and takes this appeal from a judgment for defendant entered on a directed verdict. We find error and reverse.

The appellant had employee status entitling him to sue under F.E.L.A. (Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U.S. 326, 78 [780]*780S.Ct. 758, 2 L.Ed.2d 799), and we hold, on authority of Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 77 S.Ct. 443, 352 U.S. 500, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, that the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether employer negligence played a part in producing the .appellant’s injury. See also Conner v. Butler, 361 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 21, 4 L.Ed.2d 10 (reversing Conner v. Butler, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 183).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 So. 2d 779, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-florida-east-coast-railway-co-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack