DENDY ROBERT SLIGH, APPELLANT,
v.
COLUMBIA, NEWBERRY AND LAURENS RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLEE

4th Cir. | 1966-12-23
No. 10651
Before BRYAN, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
370 F.2d 979 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no clear error in the factual findings or legal errors.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued his employer railroad under the Federal Employers Liability Act for injuries sustained due to alleged negligence in failing to provide …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Suing under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., Dendy Robert Sligh asked damages from the Columbia, Newberry and Laurens Railroad Company, for injuries he suffered because of the railroad’s alleged negligence. The fault charged was the railroad’s failure to provide sufficient employees for the job when they were required to raise and move a motor car from the rails. Further neglect, the plaintiff declared, was found in the railroad’s inadequate maintenance of the track bed which denied the plaintiff-employee a secure footing in this work. In these circumstances the weight of the car, Sligh charges, overburdened the employees engaged in the movement, causing him severe and permanent back injuries.

The parties stipulated for a trial without a jury, and the District Judge on conflicting evidence found no negligence on the part of the railroad which “played some part in producing an injury to the plaintiff”. Judgment for the defendant followed.

From our examination of the record, on Sligh’s appeal, we cannot say that these fact findings were “clearly erroneous”, F.R.Civ.P. 52(a); nor do we observe error of law in the trial. The judgment of dismissal must stand.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw