45 U.S.C. § 52
Carriers in Territories or other possessions of United States
Every common carrier by railroad in the Territories, the District of Columbia, the Panama Canal Zone, or other possessions of the United States shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in any of said jurisdictions, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1934–2017 · leading case: Glenda Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine, Inc., Marquette Transp. Co., Inc., & Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, 444 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2006).
Glenda Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine, Inc., Marquette Transp. Co., Inc., & Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, 444 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2006). “2d at 1463 (citation omitted); see also 45 U.S.C. § 52 (authorizing damages where an “injury .”
Benson v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 342 A.2d 393 (Pa. 1975). “See 45 U.S.C.A. § 52 (1972). Similarly, because the outcome of the action brought by the railroad against the cab company for indemnity will not adversely affect the remedy provided by Congress in the FELA, it too is governed by Pennsylvania Law.”
Stella Reyes, Adm'x of the Est. of Florentino Reyes, Deceased v. Vantage S.S. Co., Inc., 558 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1977). “des in pertinent part as follows: the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee: Provided, that no such…”
Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377 (1948). “§ 39 (1917) (“The term ‘United States’ . . . includes the Canal Zone and all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Thomas W. Eggert v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. & Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co., 538 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1976). “Even taking the most liberal view of jury trial rights in an FELA case, however, I cannot agree that the jury might properly find that plaintiff’s accident was caused “in whole or in part,” 45 U.S.C. § 52 , by the defective engine cab seat.”
Rogers v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., 375 N.E.2d 952 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978). “As we have already noted, under section 3 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act ( 45 U.S.C. §52 (1970)) contributory negligence only serves to reduce a plaintiff’s damages in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to him.”
Panama Agencies Co. v. Franco, 111 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1940). “Stevedores injured on ships in the Canal Zone are still under the Merchant Marine Act if they ever were. They easily might be, because the federal statutes relating to injury and death of railway employees, which are adopted into Section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, are of…”
Elizabeth E. Nicholson v. Erie R.R. Co., 253 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1958). “The causation requisite for recovery under the F.E.L.A. is lacking.”
Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 447 (D. Maryland 2017). “” 45 U.S.C. § 52 . FELA “is founded on commonlaw concepts of negligence and injury.”
Ming v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 947 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce .”
Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. Farris, 69 F.2d 779 (8th Cir. 1934). “Appellee, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, filed this suit to recover for his death under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 USCA § 52. The deceased was in the employ of appellant and it is alleged in the petition and was shown by the evidence that…”
Est. of Anderson v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 567 S.E.2d 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “) 45 USC § 52 . *846 Under common-law principles, there are basically three methods by which a plaintiff can establish his “employment” with a rail carrier for FELA purposes even while he is nominally employed by another.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.