Neal v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Neal v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
The appellant, Jackie Lee Neal, filed the instant complaint for damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act,
After a hearing on the motion, the motion was granted, and the matter was transferred to Gwinnett County. The case proceeded to trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of CSX, 2 and judgment was entered on the jury’s verdict. Neal’s motion for new trial was subsequently denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed.
Federal and state courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction in FELA actions.
Our state constitution provides that civil actions must be tried in the county where the defendant resides, and venues for corporations, foreign and domestic, are determined by law. Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI. Venue of actions for foreign corporations such as CSX is governed by
As in this case, “when the trial judge conducts a hearing on a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, his findings, as a trier of fact, are tested by the any evidence rule. [Cit.]” Id. at 866. Although the trial court herein did not make any specific written findings in its December 11, 1991, order granting CSX’s motion to transfer venue, the trial court impliedly found that venue was proper in Gwinnett County because CSX’s registered agent and registered office for service of process are located in that county. Considering the evidence in the record and the applicable law, the trial court did not
2. Next, Neal maintains that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for new trial because the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
In order to recover under FELA, an employee must show that the employer’s negligence played a part, however small, in the injuries that he sustained.
Southern R. Co. v. Hamilton,
While Neal alleged in his complaint and at trial that the railroad yard was negligently maintained by CSX, CSX produced testimony of the terminal superintendent for the railroad yard who stated that the company employed a cleaning crew to remove debris within the yard. The superintendent further testified that if the condition of the yards was reported as unsafe, the company made efforts to remove the unsafe material. More importantly, Neal’s credibility was challenged based upon the inconsistent version of the accident given in his deposition testimony in comparison to his trial testimony, and the misrepresentations that he made concerning his income from his business on his federal income tax return form. In addition, the testimony of two of his corroborating witnesses revealed that they were also asserting an action against CSX under FELA. Moreover, the medical evidence produced showed that Neal’s physical and psychological condition was probably related to his preexisting infirmities. There was also evidence produced at trial that Neal failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to accept a position within his limitations that had been offered by CSX.
“ ‘On appeal an appellate court is bound to construe the evidence in support of the verdict and judgment, and if there is some evidence to support the verdict we will uphold the judgment. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]”
Thompson v. Hardy Chevrolet-Pontiac-Buick,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
He also asserted in a separate count that he was entitled to damages for injuries that he subsequently sustained on CSX’s premises while attempting to pick up a disability check. However, during trial, he dismissed this count.
During the trial, Neal dismissed his claim for damages as a result of the March 1990 accident.
While