ROBERT D. GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 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.
This case involves an employee suing his employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard under Florida law.
Yes, the trial court erred by applying the federal summary judgment standard. Under Florida law, the moving party must conclusively demonstrate the absence of a material fact issue, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.
[1] Under Florida law, the party moving for summary judgment must conclusively demonstrate the nonexistence of an issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possib…
[2] In Florida state courts, Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) actions are subject to the forum state's procedural rules.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Paragraph 4 of the summary judgment order indicates that the trial court placed the burden upon Green to produce evidence that the negligence of CSX contributed to producing the injury for which damages are sought.”
This quote highlights the incorrect burden placed on the plaintiff by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Green sued his employer, CSX Transportation, under FELA. CSX obtained a summary judgment in the trial court, relying on a federal standard. The…
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 Admissibility Of Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an action brought by Robert Green against his employer, CSX Transportation (CSX), pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C., § 51, et seq. Relying upon Moody v. Main Central Railroad Co., 823 F. 2d 693 (1st Cir.1987), CSX convinced the trial court to grant a defense summary judgment. Moody, however, turned upon the federal summary judgment standard, see generally Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), a standard that has not been adopted by the Florida Supreme Court. Paragraph 4 of the summary judgment order indicates that the trial court placed the burden upon Green to produce evidence that the negligence of CSX contributed to producing the injury for which damages are sought.
Under Florida law, however, the party moving for summary judgment is required to conclusively demonstrate the nonexistence of an issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977).
The movant’s unsworn motion for summary judgment is not sufficient to rebut the allegations of an unsworn complaint, which must be accepted as true for the purposes of a motion for summary judgment, unless conclusively disproven. See Graff v. McNeil, 322 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA1975).
CSX did not carry its burden under Florida law. See Henderson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 617 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA1993) (FELA actions in state courts are subject to forum state’s procedural rules).
Accordingly, the trial court erred by requiring appellant to submit evidence of causation, and further erred in granting summary judgment.
We REVERSE the order on appeal, and REMAND the case for further proceedings. By this reversal, we also VACATE the trial court’s rulings concerning the admissibility of Dr. William Taylor’s deposition testimony. The admissibility of this testimony should be reconsidered if, and when, the evidence is proffered at trial or otherwise.
SMITH, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cameshia Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…nt to: “[S]how conclusively that no material issues remain for trial.” Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601, 604 (Fla.1966), see 5G’s Car Sales, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 581 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Green v. CSX Transp., Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In November 2003, Byrd began employment as a cashier at a Wendy’s restaurant owned by BT Foods. Early on, Byrd told her supervisor, Rose Johnson, that she was HIV positive. Johnson conveyed this information to the store manager…
-
Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Speedway on that count, and Du-pont has not cross-appealed. . See Kitchen v. Ebonite Recreation Centers, Inc., 856 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Quilling v. County of Sumter, 726 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Green v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Vera v. Adeland, 881 So. 2d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). . See Natson v. Eckerd Corp., Inc., 885 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Cf. Razner v. Welling…
-
Nard, Inc. v. DeVITO Contracting & Supply, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…arding the shifting burden of persuasion, but because we would have to disregard the existing Florida law on this subject. See Lich v. N.C.J. Inv. Co., 728 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Altenbernd, J. dissenting); Green v. CSX Transp., Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and 5G’s Car Sales, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 581 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Moody v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 823 F.2d 693 (1st Cir. 1987)
- Graff v. McNEIL, 322 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Henderson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 617 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)