Court Opinion

ID: 9588453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:34:35.457378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:58.881747
License: Public Domain

Judge Hedrick
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result of that part of the majority decision that affirms the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the claim of plaintiff, Southern Railway. I dissent, however, from that part of the decision that reverses the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the cases of the additional plaintiffs, Williams, Cloer, and Ussery. In my opinion, where the additional plaintiffs have assigned their claims to their employer, and the majority has declared the original plaintiff, employer, not to be a real party in interest, and where the record affirmatively discloses that these employees, additional plaintiffs, have been paid by their employer for the precise claims that they undertook to assign and for which they now seek to recover from the defendant, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant.