Court Opinion

ID: 5070927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 10:39:09.3264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:49.717703
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 01-86-00564-CV 07/10/1991 Exhibits returned to the lower court clerks 07/01/1991 Motion to withdraw disposed of Granted 06/24/1991 motion to withdraw 01/14/1991 Motion to withdraw disposed of Granted 01/10/1991 motion to withdraw 10/12/1990 U.S. Supreme Court notice 08/13/1990 U.S. Supreme Court notice 06/08/1990 Mandate issued 05/16/1990 Motion to stay mandate disposed Overruled 05/15/1990 Reply brief 05/09/1990 Motion to stay mandate filed. 05/02/1990 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Overruled 04/17/1990 Amicus Curiae Brief received 03/19/1990 Reply to motion for rehearing 03/16/1990 Motion for Rehearing forwarded 03/13/1990 Notice requesting filing fee 03/07/1990 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 02/27/1990 cover ltr with jmt 02/21/1990 Dissenting opinion issued. 02/21/1990 Dissenting opinion issued. 02/21/1990 previous judgment withdrawn 02/21/1990 Opinion issued judgment of the coa reversed, remanded to tc 02/21/1990 Previous opinion withdrawn 02/21/1990 Previous opinion withdrawn 02/21/1990 Previous opinion withdrawn 02/21/1990 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Granted 01/10/1990 Brief filed that is difficult to read due to color 01/10/1990 Reply brief 01/04/1990 Amended motion for rehearing 01/04/1990 File instrument. 01/04/1990 Letter sent to parties from Supreme Court - See Remarks 12/20/1989 Dissenting opinion issued. 10/16/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 10/06/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 09/19/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 09/14/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 09/13/1989 Letter Received 09/12/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 09/11/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 07/26/1989 Reply to motion for rehearing 07/20/1989 Amicus Curiae Brief received 07/20/1989 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 07/20/1989 Motion for Rehearing forwarded 07/07/1989 cover ltr with jmt 07/05/1989 Dissenting opinion issued. 07/05/1989 Opinion issued judgment of the court of appeals affirmed 12/07/1988 Reply brief 11/17/1988 Post submission brief 10/14/1988 Additional cites or additional authorities 10/10/1988 File instrument. 10/05/1988 Oral argument 06/22/1988 Application for Writ of Error - Disposed Granted 06/22/1988 Writ of error issued to Court of Appeals. 03/23/1988 No description available. 03/23/1988 Case forwarded to Court 03/23/1988 Reply filed 03/08/1988 Application for Writ of Error - Filed
This is an appeal from a take-nothing judgment in an F.E.L.A. case.
In two points of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in submitting, over his objection, the following instruction to Special Issue No. 3:
 In answering this issue, you are instructed that, before negligence, if any, can be established against the Defendant, [sic] Railroad, it must be shown that the Defendant Railroad, through its officers, agents, and/or employees, knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of an unsafe condition, if any.
Appellant claims that the instruction was error because it:
 (1) improperly instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove foreseeability in an F.E.L.A. case; and *Page 667
 (2) the instruction amounted to a comment on the weight of the evidence, because it instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove foreseeability.
Appellant was injured when he allegedly slipped while boarding a moving engine in the dark. He claimed that the steps, platform, and grab iron were coated with ice, which caused him to slip and fall while attempting to board the engine.
Plaintiff's formal pleadings, among other things, alleged that that ice-coated engine constituted a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act, and constituted a violation of appellee's duty to furnish appellant with a safe place to work.
The jury found that there was ice on the engine, but failed to find that the steps, platform, or grab iron on the engine were in an unsafe condition.
Appellant's initial contention is based on the premise that the instruction of which he complains requires the plaintiff to prove foreseeability. We construe the instruction as one pertaining to knowledge or notice of a defective or dangerous condition, rather than foreseeability.
The instruction given by the court in our case is quite similar to the one refused by the trial court, but approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Baynum v. Chesapeakeand Ohio Railway, 456 F.2d 658 (6th Cir. 1972).
In Miller v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas PacificRailway, 317 F.2d 693, 695 (6th Cir. 1963), the court restated the rule that in F.E.L.A. actions, where negligence is essential to recovery, a defendant could not be convicted of negligence for a defective condition, absent proof that such defect was known, or should, have been known by the defendant with an opportunity to correct it. In Rogers v. MissouriPacific Railroad, 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), and Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 69 S.Ct. 413, 93 L.Ed. 497 (1949), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the proposition that actual or constructive notice of a defect by the defendant must be proved before recovery can be had on negligence arising out of the defect.
Appellant's first point of error is overruled.
Appellant's second point of error, urging that the foreseeability charge amounted to a comment on the weight of the evidence must also be overruled because we have held that the instruction pertained to notice rather than to foreseeability.
Appellant makes the logical argument that if he was required to prove notice of the defect as a prerequisite to a recovery on his negligence issue, then appellee likewise should be required to prove that appellant had notice of the defect before he could be adjudged contributorily negligent. We agree with this reasoning, but note that appellant requested no instruction regarding his knowledge of the defects. Any such complaint is waived. Tex.R.Civ.P. 273.
Appellant's second point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
LEVY, J., dissents.