FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND R. W. WYCKOFF, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL T. HILL, 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.
Florida East Coast Railway Company and R.W. Wyckoff appealed a wrongful discharge judgment entered against them, arguing that a 1966 Amendment to the Railway Labor Act barred the employee's claim brought in 1965. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Amendment did not retroactively eliminate the employee's right to pursue common law remedies for wrongful discharge.
The court held that the Amendment to the Railway Labor Act does not make its remedies the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge, and even if it did, it would not apply retroactively to discharge incidents occurring before its enactment. The trial court did not err in denying interest because the damages were not capable of ascertainment by computation or well-established standards of values prior to judgment.
[1] An amendment to the Railway Labor Act does not necessarily render its remedies exclusive for a wrongfully discharged employee.
[2] Applying a statutory amendment retroactively is impermissible if it would alter existing rights.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We do not construe the Amendment to be such as to make the remedies available therein the exclusive remedy for an allegedly wrongfully discharged employee to determine his rights.”
Establishes that the 1966 Railway Labor Act Amendment does not eliminate alternative common law remedies for wrongful discharge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael T. Hill, an employee of Florida East Coast Railway Company, was allegedly wrongfully discharged in November 1965. The railroad contended that …
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 Interest On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were defendants in the trial court in a wrongful discharge action brought by the appellee. Among other things, the railroad contends the adverse final judgment was in error because although the incident occurred in November of 1965 and the employee may have had an election of remedies [pursuant to Mountain v. National Airlines, Inc., Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 574; Scott v. National Airlines, Inc., Fla. 1963, 150 So.2d 237; Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089; Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795; Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325] within one year of the alleged wrongful discharge, he lost this right by virtue of the enactment by Congress of an Amendment to the Railway Labor Act, effective June 20, 1966.1
We do not construe the Amendment to be such as to make the remedies available therein the exclusive remedy for an allegedly wrongfully discharged employee to determine his rights. Walker v. Southern Railway Company, 385 U.S. 196, 87 S.Ct. 365, 17 L.Ed.2d 294; Belanger v. New York Central Railroad Company, 6th Cir. 1967, 384 F.2d 35; Ferguson v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, 5th Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 473; Cales v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, W. D. Virginia 1969, 300 F.Supp. 155. But even if we did, same would be inapplicable in the instant case because it would have the effect of giving retroactive interpretation to the Amendment. In re Seven Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1, 83 So. 627; Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Brooks-Fisher Insulating Company, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 613; Schonfield v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 453; Winfree v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 9th Cir. 1909, 173 F. 65; 30 Fla.Jur., Statutes, § 141; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 478.
The other questions raised by the appellants have been examined and found to be without merit, and the final judgment here under review should be affirmed under the authority of Mountain v. National Airlines, Inc., supra; Scott v. National Airlines, Inc., supra; Smith v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 70; Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, supra; Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, supra; Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Koppal, supra; Walker v. Southern Railway Company, supra.
The appellee has cross-appealed on the failure to award interest for the time between the discharge and the filing of the law suit. We find no error on the part of the trial judge in denying same. It is apparent that the amount sought by the appel-lee was not “capable of ascertainment by mere computation or by well-established standards of values” prior to judgment. 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 86; 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages, §§ 185, 186.
Therefore, the final judgment or the jury verdict here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Contos v. Evalyn Lipsky, 433 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…n to purchase. As the expert testimony so clearly indicates, the true market value, whether encumbered or unencumbered by the lease, was capable of ascertainment by well-established standards of value, see Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Hill, 233 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), and although there may have been some differences in the appraisers’ testimony the very agreement of the parties to accept the average of the appraisals, see n. 4, supra, is a telling acknowledgment that the standards of value ar…
-
Nechtman v. A. D. Saker & the Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 271 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…d for a period not exceeding two years, or until compliance with a lawful order imposed in the final order of suspension, or both, upon a finding of facts showing that the registrant has: . See: Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Hill, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 845; Springer v. Colburn, Fla.1964, 162 So. 2d 513; Heberle v. P. R. O. Liquidating Co., Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 280; Schonfield v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So. 2d 453.…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hill, 238 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 233 So. 2d 845. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Slocum v. Delaware, 339 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1950)
- Moore v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1941)
- Transcon. & W. Air, Inc. v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1953)
- In re Seizure of 7 Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1920)
- Walker v. S. Ry. Co., 385 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1966)
- Mountain v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 75 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Smith v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 151 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Scott v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 150 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1963)
- Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. The Brooks-Fisher Insulating Co., 140 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Belanger v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co., 384 F.2d 35 (6th Cir. 1967)