 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company3/22/2001
Curley Roberts (Roberts) appeals from a take-nothing judgment in his personal injury suit against Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SOPAC) under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). In two issues, Roberts contends the trial court erred in entering judgment on the jury verdict for SOPAC and in denying Roberts' motion for new trial because: (1) the evidence was inadequate to support the jury verdict for SOPAC, and (2) the trial court refused to submit a jury question on SOPAC's agency relationship with the cab company. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1991, Roberts, a conductor for SOPAC, and two other SOPAC employees were scheduled to work on SOPAC's train. According to Roberts, cab transportation was arranged by SOPAC to take them from the railroad yard in Shreveport, Louisiana, to the train. When the cab arrived at the yard, Roberts put a bag of ice in the back of the cab, and the cab moved forward before Roberts could get in the back seat. Roberts jerked backwards and injured his back. The cab also ran over his foot, but did not injure it because Roberts was wearing steel-toed shoes. Roberts got in the back seat of the cab and told the cab driver where to go, but was "reminded" he had to report any accidents to the railroad immediately. He told the cab driver to back up to the yard. As directed by Roberts, the cab driver backed the cab to the yard. Roberts got out and reported the accident to the dispatcher.
Loyd Waits, a brakeman for SOPAC, testified by deposition that the railroad would obtain transportation for the employees from their hotel to the train. On this particular out- of-town work assignment, Waits stated theynormallyrode in a "carry-all" van that belonged to the hotel where they stayed. Waits stated that the yardmaster would normally make the transportation arrangements, and he thought someone at the yard called the cab to take them to work on the night Roberts was injured. A taxicab picked-up Waits, Roberts, and an engineer, Benton, at their hotel, and drove them to the yard. Roberts got the ice from someplace in the yard, and then put it on the floor in the back of the cab behind the passenger's seat. Waits stated that they needed ice and water that night for the long haul on the train. The cab moved forward, and Roberts injured his back. Waits suggested that Roberts fill out an accident report because the company "is pretty tight on accident records." After Roberts reported the accident to someone at the yard, they all went back to the hotel in the cab.
Roberts settled with the cab company and this suit was dismissed as to them with prejudice.
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his first issue, Roberts contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that SOPAC was not negligent. Roberts asserts that SOPAC was liable for the negligence of its agents, and the evidence reflects the cab company was SOPAC's agent and it was negligent. Question No. 1 asked:
Was the negligence, if any, of the persons named below a cause, in whole or in part, of the injuries, if any, suffered by Plaintiff, Curley Roberts?
A. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
B. Curley Roberts
The jury answered "no" for both parties. Unanswered Question No. 2 was conditioned on a finding of negligence of both parties, and asked the jury to determine what percentage of negligence was attributable to each party. Question No. 3 was the damage issue, and the jury found no damages other that $25,000.00 for physical pain and mental anguish.
Standard of Review
We must limit our review to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. An
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|