MATTHEW HUGHRY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the jury's award of damages, reduced by comparative negligence, was not an error justifying a new trial.
Plaintiff was injured by a train in a switching yard and sued the railroad company. The jury awarded damages but reduced them based on a comparative n…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trespasser Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff recovered damages from defendant railroad company arising out of his having been injured by a train in a switching yard. Being dissatisfied with the amount of the award, he claims error in' two particulars and seeks a new trial.
As to the first claim of error, it is not altogether clear that the court instructed the jury that plaintiff was a trespasser in that the instructions to this effect were immediately followed by another instruction that left the issue to the jury. Even assuming the jury was instructed that plaintiff was a trespasser, we find no error. The evidence was “strongly and overwhelmingly” that plaintiff was a trespasser and there was no conflict in the substantial evidence to create a jury question on the trespasser issue. Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F. 2d 365, 374. On the trespasser question as presented, see Dickerson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 1962, 244 Miss. 733, 145 So. 2d 913; Murray v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 1934, 168 Miss. 513, 151 So. 913.
The real contention is that the damages awarded were inadequate as a result of being reduced by the jury, pursuant to a comparative negligence in-, struction. Plaintiff did not except to the instruction, and there was an evidentiary basis for applying the doctrine with a resultant reduction in damages.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)