SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANKIE LEE JONES, 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 appellate court affirmed a $100,000 judgment for an employee injured while working for a railroad, rejecting the employer's contentions that jury instructions improperly emphasized employer duties under the Federal Employer's Liability Act and failed to distinguish assumption of risk from contributory negligence.
Jury instructions in an FELA case that treat all relevant issues with equality and adequately define contributory negligence are not reversible error merely because they emphasize employer obligations.
[1] Under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, jury instructions that emphasize employer obligations while adequately defining the employee's duty of contributory negligence…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company was injured while employed and received a jury verdict awarding $100,000 in damages.…
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 Negligence Under Fela cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant railroad seeks reversal of a final judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding appellee $100,000.00 in damages as a result of injuries received by appellee while employed by appellant.
Four points of error are submitted by appellant for our consideration, all pertaining to the trial court’s instructions to the jury. In essence, appellant contends that undue emphasis was placed upon the obligations of the employer under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, thus negating the duties of an employee; that the charge was not justified by the evidence with regard to appellee’s reliance upon instructions from a superior; and that the court erred in instructing the jury upon the law of assumption of risk and in thereafter failing to make to the jury a distinction between the doctrines of assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
We have carefully reviewed the lower court’s entire charge to the jury and the appellant’s objections thereto during the trial. It is our conclusion that said instruction, when considered in its entirety, treated all relevant issues with equality, was justified by the evidence adduced during the trial proceedings, and adequately defined the doctrine of contributory negligence.
The appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in this respect, the final judgment herein is accordingly affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.