Perez v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perez v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

673 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2831, 1996 WL 121015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 20, 1996

DocketNo. 94-2766

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 673 So. 2d 62 (Perez 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

Perez v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 673 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2831, 1996 WL 121015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jose Perez, a railroad worker, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for directed verdict on his own comparative fault.

The jury was improperly charged to consider plaintiffs comparative fault on evidence that supported no more than assumption of the risk — a defense specifically barred under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). 45 U.S.C. § 54 (1990); Taylor v. Burlington Northern R.R., 787 F.2d 1309, 1316 (9th Cir.1986) (“Defenses once embraced substantially within the concept of assumption of the risk are barred under the FELA and may not be revived in the form of contributory negligence.”); Hall v. American S.S., 688 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir.1982) (in a Jones Act case applying the same rale as FELA, where a seaman was required to work on deck in dangerously stormy conditions his failure to protest could not support a finding of negligence). Accordingly, we reverse with instructions for the trial court to strike the comparative fault apportionment and enter judgment for plaintiff in the full amount of the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jose Perez, a railroad worker, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for directed verdict on his own comparative fault.

The jury was improperly charged to consider plaintiffs comparative fault on evidence that supported no more than assumption of the risk — a defense specifically barred under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). 45 U.S.C. § 54 (1990); Taylor v. Burlington Northern R.R., 787 F.2d 1309, 1316 (9th Cir.1986) (“Defenses once embraced substantially within the concept of assumption of the risk are barred under the FELA and may not be revived in the form of contributory negligence.”); Hall v. American S.S., 688 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir.1982) (in a Jones Act case applying the same rale as FELA, where a seaman was required to work on deck in dangerously stormy conditions his failure to protest could not support a finding of negligence). Accordingly, we reverse with instructions for the trial court to strike the comparative fault apportionment and enter judgment for plaintiff in the full amount of the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2831, 1996 WL 121015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-florida-east-coast-railway-co-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack