Lena E. Whitley v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company

Fifth Circuit

Lena E. Whitley v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company

328 F.2d 308, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 1964

Docket20515_1

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F.2d 308 (Lena E. Whitley v. Texas & Pacific Railway 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

Lena E. Whitley v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, 328 F.2d 308, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this FELA ease the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant railway company. The plaintiff’s appeal rests on the district court’s alleged error (1) in failing to give instructions specifically embodying the plaintiff’s theory of recovery and (2) in allowing evidence showing that there had been no accidents in the past where the accident had occurred.

We have considered carefully the trial judge’s instructions to the jury. We find that the instructions are sufficiently specific to charge the jury correctly as to the plaintiff’s theory of the case. This is all the law requires.

There was no error in the admission of the evidence. See Rule 43(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.; Givens v. DeSoto Building Company, et al., 156 La. 377, 100 So. 534; Sistrunk v. Audubon Park Natatorium, La.App., 164 So. 667; Savoy v. G. F. Poole Mortuary, Inc., et al., La.App., 60 So.2d 108; Greeves v. S. H. Kress & Company, La.App., 198 So. 171; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Lint, 8 Cir. 1954, 217 F.2d 279; Hambrice v. F. W. Woolworth Company, 5 Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 557; Bonner v. Mercantile National Bank of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 780.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this FELA ease the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant railway company. The plaintiff’s appeal rests on the district court’s alleged error (1) in failing to give instructions specifically embodying the plaintiff’s theory of recovery and (2) in allowing evidence showing that there had been no accidents in the past where the accident had occurred.

We have considered carefully the trial judge’s instructions to the jury. We find that the instructions are sufficiently specific to charge the jury correctly as to the plaintiff’s theory of the case. This is all the law requires.

There was no error in the admission of the evidence. See Rule 43(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.; Givens v. DeSoto Building Company, et al., 156 La. 377, 100 So. 534; Sistrunk v. Audubon Park Natatorium, La.App., 164 So. 667; Savoy v. G. F. Poole Mortuary, Inc., et al., La.App., 60 So.2d 108; Greeves v. S. H. Kress & Company, La.App., 198 So. 171; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company v. Lint, 8 Cir. 1954, 217 F.2d 279; Hambrice v. F. W. Woolworth Company, 5 Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 557; Bonner v. Mercantile National Bank of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 780.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.2d 308, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lena-e-whitley-v-texas-pacific-railway-company-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack