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

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 13, 1964·No. 20515_1·Published

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.

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

Pincite

328 F.2d 308 (Lena E. Whitley v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related