Case Name: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. James B. BLAIR, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-02-15
Citations: 183 So. 2d 257
Docket Number: No. 65-511
Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. James B. BLAIR, Appellee.
Judges: Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 183
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. James B. BLAIR, Appellee.
No. 65-511.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 15, 1966.
Rehearing Denied March 9, 1966.
Bolles, Goodwin & Ryskamp, Miami, for appellant
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Robert Orseck, Miami, for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case (45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.), the principal question presented is whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error when he charged the jury upon the issue of future pain and suffering. We find that the record contains evidence to support a charge upon the issue. See Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 557; Alamo v. Del Rosario, 69 App.D.C. 47, 98 F.2d 328 (1938). See also Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U.S. 107, 80 S.Ct. 173, 4 L.Ed.2d 142 (1959).
A second point urges error because of a charge on loss of earnings. Appellant has failed to establish that the issue was not presented by the evidence.
Affirmed.