Kenneth L. Ragsdell v. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Corporation

688 F.2d 1281 Kenneth L. RAGSDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 81-5295. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 7, 1982. Decided Sept. 28, 1982. Daniel Fogel, Fogel, Julber, Rothschild & Feldman, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. David L. Beaugureau, McLoone, Theobald & Galbut, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Ragsdell sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) ( 45 U.S.C. § 51 , et seq.) and the Safety Appliance Act ( 45 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 ) for injuries to his knee suffered in a fall from a side ladder on a box car he was descending after setting a brake on top of the car. He appeals from the judgment entered after a jury verdict against him, claiming that the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instructions on Southern Pacific's duty under the FELA to provide him a safe place to work. 2 Jury instructions, viewed as a whole, should adequately instruct a…

Ragsdell sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) ( 45 U.S.C. § 51 , et seq.) and the Safety Appliance Act ( 45 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 ) for injuries to his knee suffered in a fall from a side ladder on a box car he was descending after setting a brake on top of the car. He appeals from the judgment entered after a jury verdict against him, claiming that the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instructions on Southern Pacific’s duty under the FELA to provide him a safe place to work.

Jury instructions, viewed as a whole, should adequately instruct a jury on each element of a case. United States v. Garcia-Rodriquez, 558 F.2d 956, 965 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1050 , 98 S.Ct. 900 , 54 L.Ed.2d 802 (1978). Instructions need not be faultless, but they must insure that a jury understand the issues in a case and not be misled in any way. Van Cleef v. Aeroflex Corp., 657 F.2d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1981). If the instructions given allow a jury to determine intelligently the *1283 questions presented, a judgment will not be disturbed simply because further amplification was refused. Investment Service Co. v. Allied Equities Corp., 519 F.2d 508,…

concurring:

I concur in the opinion except that I express no view on the appropriateness of the suggested jury instruction. It was not before the district court and not briefed or argued by the parties before us.