Laird v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the collateral benefits did not warrant an offset from damages
• noting that although the railroad introduced evidence that it contributed the majority of the funds supporting the plaintiffs disability payments, “defendant has not brought to our attention any FELA eases which distinguish the holding of the Supreme Court in Eichel ”
• despite abrogation of collateral source rule in various types of civil litigation in other states, court declined to “eliminate application of this judicially created doctrine” where defendant failed to cite FELA cases distinguishing Supreme Court’s holding in Eichel
• “Railroad Retirement Act disability payments are considered pension benefits which amount to compensation for services previously rendered because it is the length of service and monthly wage rather than the extent of disability that determines the amount of the annuity.”
• “While it is true that if the injury results solely from the conduct of the plaintiff there can be no recovery, this rule does not apply, even where there is evidence that plaintiff violated a safety regulation, in situations where there is also evidence that defendant was negligent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).