Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. CLARK, 1930 — 42 F.2d 216 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. CLARK
42 F.2d 216·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. CLARK.
No. 5837.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 12, 1930.
Robert H. Anderson, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.
John E. Teate and George C. Bedell, both of Jacksonville, Fla. (Chester Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — FOSTER, Circuit Judge. .]
FOSTER, Circuit Judge. .
Appellee brought suit under the provisions of the Federal Employers’ liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59) and recovered a judgment for damages for the death of her husband, a locomotive engineer employed by appellant, who was killed in an accident which derailed his engine. The only error urged is to the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict.
Negligence alleged was the use of an over-worn and insecurely fastened rail on a curve. Although there was considerable conflict, there was evidence tending to show the condition of the rail as alleged, and that because it was insecurely fastened, when a train took the curve at the usual rate of speed, there was enough play to allow the rail to cant and cause the track to spread sufficiently to derail the engine. We think there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury and that it was not error to refuse a directed verdict.
The record presents no reversible error.
Affirmed.