Legal Opinion

Handy v. Union Pacific Railroad

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided November 12, 1992No. 900638-CAPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ORME, Judge:

Plaintiff Vivi Handy appeals the trial court’s grant of defendant Union Pacific Railroad’s motion for a directed verdict in this action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Because we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements of a cause of action for negligence under FELA, we affirm.

I. FACTS

It is necessary that we recite the facts in some detail. Given the posture of the case, we review the facts set forth in plaintiff’s case in chief.

Plaintiff began her Union Pacific employment…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sorenson v. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1994
  2. Sheikh v. Department of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1995
  3. Bell v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1996
  4. Wilkinson v. Union Pacific RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Cheek v. Iron CountyCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API