Moses v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moses v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

256 So. 2d 222, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1972

DocketNo. 71-42

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 222 (Moses v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad) 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

Moses v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 256 So. 2d 222, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7427 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a summary final judgment for defendant. Appellant argues that he is entitled to relief under the provisions of Section 11 of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A.

We have carefully reviewed the file in light of appellant’s argument and we find no facts or reasonable inferences therefrom which would support a finding that the railroad car[s] was on appellee’s line. [223]*223Therefore, appellee is relieved of any possible liability as contended under appellant’s argument on appeal. See Risberg v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 233 Minn. 396, 47 N.W.2d 113, cert. den. 342 U.S. 832, 72 S.Ct. 40, 96 L.Ed. 630 (1951), reh. den. 342 U.S. 895, 72 S.Ct. 198, 96 L.Ed. 670 (1951); Paul v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 96 F.Supp. 578 (D.C.Minn.1950).

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a summary final judgment for defendant. Appellant argues that he is entitled to relief under the provisions of Section 11 of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A.

We have carefully reviewed the file in light of appellant’s argument and we find no facts or reasonable inferences therefrom which would support a finding that the railroad car[s] was on appellee’s line. [223]*223Therefore, appellee is relieved of any possible liability as contended under appellant’s argument on appeal. See Risberg v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 233 Minn. 396, 47 N.W.2d 113, cert. den. 342 U.S. 832, 72 S.Ct. 40, 96 L.Ed. 630 (1951), reh. den. 342 U.S. 895, 72 S.Ct. 198, 96 L.Ed. 670 (1951); Paul v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 96 F.Supp. 578 (D.C.Minn.1950).

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 222, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-seaboard-coast-line-railroad-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack