FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MACK PIERCE, 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 appeal by the Florida East Coast Railway Company after a trial court granted a new trial in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case. The appellate court affirmed the order for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
No, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. The appellate court found that the trial judge's concern about potentially misleading the jury on proximate cause, in light of FELA's modified standards, was a valid basis for ordering a new trial.
“In view of the extent to which the concept of proximate cause has been modified in F.E.L.A. cases (see Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; McCloskey v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 481), we conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated error, and no abuse of discretion has been shown.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the trial court's decision, highlighting the modified proximate cause standard in FELA cases and the lack of demonstrated error by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Florida East Coast Railway Company, in a FELA lawsuit. Subsequently, the trial judge granted the plaintif…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., a verdict for the defendant was followed by an order granting a new trial, from which the defendant has appealed.1
The trial judge appears to have felt that by recalling the jury and charging them on proximate cause he may have misled them as to the showing of negligence needed to *122support the claim of liability. In view of the extent to which the concept of proximate cause has been modified in F.E.L.A. cases (see Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; McCloskey v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 481), we conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated error, and no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957)
- McGLOSKEY v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 122 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)