Legal Opinion
Morgan v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 7, 1980No. 79 Civ. 3847 (RWS)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiff William Morgan (“Morgan”) commenced this action against defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”) seeking damages under the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. § 23 1 and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (the “F.E.L.A.”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 2 for the loss of an eye sustained while under Conrail’s employ. Morgan, a freight trainman, was struck in the face by a bottle thrown by an unidentified youth through the open side window of the locomotive cab in which Morgan was riding. The damaged left eye had to be removed, and he now wears a prosthesis.…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. LiepeltSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Samuel Simblest v. Joseph MaynardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Victor Bevevino v. M. S. SaydjariCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Carl O. Akermanis, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Hancock v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Gardner v. CSX Transportation, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1997
- Akermanis v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- MacHleder v. DiazDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.