Ragsdell v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-5295,81-5295 |
| Citation | 688 F.2d 1281 |
| Parties | Kenneth L. RAGSDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Daniel Fogel, Fogel, Julber, Rothschild & Feldman, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
David L. Beaugureau, McLoone, Theobald & Galbut, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
Ragsdell sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq.) and the Safety Appliance Act (45 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) for injuries to his knee suffered in a fall from a side ladder on a box car he was descending after setting a brake on top of the car. He appeals from the judgment entered after a jury verdict against him, claiming that the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instructions on Southern Pacific's duty under the FELA to provide him a safe place to work.
Jury instructions, viewed as a whole, should adequately instruct a jury on each element of a case. United States v. Garcia-Rodriquez, 558 F.2d 956, 965 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1050, 98 S.Ct. 900, 54 L.Ed.2d 802 (1978). Instructions need not be faultless, but they must insure that a jury understand the issues in a case and not be misled in any way. Van Cleef v. Aeroflex Corp., 657 F.2d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1981). If the instructions given allow a jury to determine intelligently the questions presented, a judgment will not be disturbed simply because further amplification was refused. Investment Service Co. v. Allied Equities Corp., 519 F.2d 508, 511 (9th Cir. 1975).
Although a railroad's duty to use reasonable care in furnishing employees a safe place to work is not stated explicitly in the statute, it has become an integral part of the FELA. Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry., 319 U.S. 350, 352-53, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 1063-64, 87 L.Ed. 1444 (1943). Under the FELA, that duty becomes "more imperative" as the risk to an employee increases. The duty is a "continuing one" and requires a jury to weigh a myriad of factors-including the nature of a task, its hazards and efforts-in determining whether an employer furnished an employee with a reasonably safe place to work. Id. This continuous duty to provide a safe place to work is broader than the general duty to use reasonable care. Other courts in FELA actions have held that failure to instruct a jury regarding an employer's duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work is reversible error. See Moore v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 291 So.2d 656 (Fla. D.C. App. D1), cert. denied, 306 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1974); Holweger v. Great Northern Railway, 130 N.W.2d 354, 269 Minn. 83 (1964). We agree that when the issue is properly raised and an instruction is requested, the FELA requires jury instructions on the duty to provide a reasonably safe place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com'n v. National Football League
...on each element of the case to insure that the jury fully understood the issues. Ragsdell v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 688 F.2d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir.1982); Van Cleef v. Aeroflex Corp., 657 F.2d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir.1981). A court is not required to use the exact words proposed by a......
-
Seeberger v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...to provide it to him. However, while a railroad has a duty to provide reasonably safe and suitable tools, Ragsdell v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 688 F.2d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir.1982), it is well settled that "in FELA cases an employer is neither required to furnish the employee with the latest......
-
National RR Passenger Corp. v. Krouse
...that Defendant knew or should reasonably have known would aggravate her physical condition. Id.; see also Ragsdell v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 688 F.2d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir.1982) (employer has continuous duty to provide employers with a reasonably safe place to 11 Appellee argues that Kich......
-
Szymanski v. Columbia Transp. Co., a Div. of Oglebay- Norton Co., OGLEBAY-NORTON
...their employees with a safe place to work. Yehia v. Rouge Steel Corp., 898 F.2d at 1184 (Jones Act); Ragsdell v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 688 F.2d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir.1982) (FELA). Employers also may be negligent if they assign employees tasks that are beyond their physical capacities. Fl......
-
Federal employer negligence statutes
...ruled, however, that jurors must be instructed as to an employer’s duty in a FELA case. See Ragsdell v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. , 688 F.2d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir. 1982) (“the duty is a ‘continuing one’ and requires a jury to weigh a myriad of factors—including the nature of a task, its ha......