William Z. Faulkenberry, Cross v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., Cross

Fifth Circuit

William Z. Faulkenberry, Cross v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., Cross

551 F.2d 650, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1977

Docket75-2028

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 551 F.2d 650 (William Z. Faulkenberry, Cross v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., Cross) 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

William Z. Faulkenberry, Cross v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co., Cross, 551 F.2d 650, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13603 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s judgment for the plaintiff-railroad engineer, who allegedly suffered a heart attack as a result of a train derailment in the defendant’s Baton Rouge yard. The action was brought under the provisions of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 51. Both parties appealed and after careful consideration of the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel, *651 we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

The defendant-railroad urges on appeal that there was insufficient proof of negligent track maintenance on its part and that the court’s instruction to the jury regarding res ipsa loquitur was erroneous. It also argues that the evidence is insufficient to connect the derailment with plaintiff’s heart attack. We find no such errors and cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict and judgment were “without reason” as contended by the railroad. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957).

On his cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to give a specific instruction as to what damages were recoverable and in failing to award interest on the judgment from the date of judicial demand. The issue concerning damages was waived prior to oral argument and, as plaintiff himself concedes, the law in this circuit is contrary to his position on the question of interest. Louisiana & A. Ry. v. Pratt, 142 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1947).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s judgment for the plaintiff-railroad engineer, who allegedly suffered a heart attack as a result of a train derailment in the defendant’s Baton Rouge yard. The action was brought under the provisions of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 51. Both parties appealed and after careful consideration of the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel, *651 we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

The defendant-railroad urges on appeal that there was insufficient proof of negligent track maintenance on its part and that the court’s instruction to the jury regarding res ipsa loquitur was erroneous. It also argues that the evidence is insufficient to connect the derailment with plaintiff’s heart attack. We find no such errors and cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict and judgment were “without reason” as contended by the railroad. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957).

On his cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to give a specific instruction as to what damages were recoverable and in failing to award interest on the judgment from the date of judicial demand. The issue concerning damages was waived prior to oral argument and, as plaintiff himself concedes, the law in this circuit is contrary to his position on the question of interest. Louisiana & A. Ry. v. Pratt, 142 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1947).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 F.2d 650, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-z-faulkenberry-cross-v-louisiana-arkansas-railway-co-cross-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack