Moore v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., s. S--299

• Citation: 291 So.2d 656
• Decision Date: 12 March 1974
• Docket Number: T--129,Nos. S--299,s. S--299
• Parties: Harold B. MOORE, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 656

291 So.2d 656

Harold B. MOORE, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, etc., Appellee.

Nos. S--299, T--129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1974.

Edward A. Perse of Horton & Perse, and Beckham & McAliley, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph P. Milton of Toole, Taylor, Moseley, Gabel & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellee.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, which was defendant below, in an action tried before a jury whereby he sought to recover damages for injuries he sustained during the course of his employment under the Federal Employers Liability Act.

Mr. Moore was a switchman and yard conductor in charge of a switch crew at the time of the accident from which his injuries arose. He and a group of fellow employees were in the process of clearing debris resulting from a derailment when a door to a railroad freight car, which was being loaded by hand into a boxcar, fell and severely injured him.

Appellant filed his complaint charging, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in failing to furnish him with a safe place to work; the failure to supply necessary tools and equipment; and failure to supply a reasonable number of coemployees and assistants. Following settlement of the pleadings, trial was had which resulted in a jury verdict for defendant.

Three issues are raised by appellant for reversal. Only one has merit. The other two, failure to grant plaintiff's motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of all evidence and refusing to give plaintiff's requested instruction to the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, are without merit as relates to the facts of this case.

The remaining point raised was the trial court's deletion from the jury instruction on the liability features of the case all references to the defendant's duty to furnish and have available adequate equipment and appliances to do the work assigned to plaintiff and his fellow workers. Such deletion was done over objections of the plaintiff and was error.

The evidence adduced at the trial indicated that boxcar doors were generally picked up and loaded by use of a derrick. A witness testified that in his long experience as a wrecker crewman he had never been called upon to load a door manually; that the normal procedure was to load a torn-off door by use of a derrick specially equipped with cables for safety.

By this and related...