862 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1988), 87-1103, Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Kansas Gas and Elec. Co.

Docket Nº:87-1103.
Citation:862 F.2d 796
Party Name:MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:December 01, 1988
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 796

862 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1988)

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1103.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

December 1, 1988

Page 797

Phillip R. Fields, of Gott, Young & Bogle, P.A., Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Michael Peters (Ralph Foster with him on the brief), Wichita, Kan., for defendant-appellant.

Before McKAY, LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51, "a railroad has the nondelegable duty to provide its employees with a safe place to work even when they are required to go onto the premises of a third party over which the railroad has no control." Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 374 U.S. 1, 7, 83 S.Ct. 1667, 1671, 10 L.Ed.2d 709 (1963). Therefore, as a condition to furnishing rail service to the premises of defendant-appellant, Kansas Gas and Electric (KG & E), plaintiff-appellee, Missouri Pacific Railroad (MoPac), required a guarantee of indemnity against loss for injuries its employees sustained while working on KG & E's property. The result was an Industrial Track Agreement (ITA). In exchange for MoPac's promise to provide service on tracks running into the construction site of the Wolf Creek Generating Station near Aliceville, Kansas, KG & E agreed to maintain safe working conditions at the location or indemnify MoPac for damages arising from its failure to do so. Paragraph three of the ITA provided:

Shipper [KG & E] shall not ... allow to be placed or stored ... [an] obstruction of any kind, over or adjacent to Switch [the tracks].... Shipper assumes full responsibility for, and shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the Carrier [MoPac] from and against, any and all liability, suits, claims, damages, costs (including attorneys' fees), losses, outlays and expenses in any manner caused bye, arising out of or connected with the failure or refusal of Shipper to comply with, observe or perform any of the provisions of this Paragraph 3, notwithstanding any possible negligence (whether sole, concurrent

Page 798

or otherwise) on the part of Carrier, its agents or employes.

On August 24, 1983, a MoPac locomotive derailed on the spur or sidetrack leading into the generating station after KG & E had constructed a temporary crossing over the rail with dirt and rock in violation of the ITA. The next day, a MoPac employee, William Cole, hurt his back while attempting to re-rail the engine. Cole was assisting in the placement of a 300 pound hydraulic jack beside the engine when he slipped and fell. He sustained permanent injury and was unable to return to work for MoPac.

In view of its potential FELA liability, MoPac proceeded to negotiate with Cole. Although MoPac demanded that KG & E fulfill its duty under the ITA and participate in the negotiations, KG & E refused. MoPac paid Cole, who was represented by counsel, $225,000 in settlement of his claim on November 29, 1984. The same day, Cole executed a release discharging both MoPac and KG & E from any liability resulting from his accident, although KG & E did not contribute to the final settlement.

MoPac thereafter instituted this diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 seeking indemnity from KG & E under paragraph three of the ITA. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court, applying Kansas law, 1 held that (1) KG & E's temporary crossing had prompted Cole's injury within the meaning of the contract, (2) the amount of MoPac's settlement with Cole was reasonable, and (3) MoPac was entitled to recover 10% prejudgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees. KG & E appeals from the final judgment entered in favor of MoPac for $225,000, plus 10% interest per year from November 29, 1984, and $4,263.75 in attorneys' fees. We affirm.

Standard of Review

This court considers the grant or denial of a summary judgment motion under the same standard employed by the district court. Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 858 F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir.1988). Because a ruling on the motion involves purely legal determinations, our review is de novo. Goichman v. Aspen, 859 F.2d 1466, 1467, (10th Cir.1988).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment should be entered "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we undoubtedly must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. McKenzie v. Mercy Hosp., 854 F.2d 365, 367 (10th Cir.1988). But the rule is also well established that the mere existence of some factual dispute will not frustrate an otherwise proper summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, considering the evidence "through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden," id. at 254, 106 S.Ct. at 2513, the court must determine "not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it upon whom the onus of proof is imposed." Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448, 20 L.Ed. 867 (1872). Accord Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Page 799

Further, it is important to note that "cross-motions for summary judgment do not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions of material fact exist." Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt, 700 F.2d 341, 349 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 805, 104 S.Ct. 53, 78 L.Ed.2d 72 (1983). They require no less careful scrutiny than an individual motion. We must be convinced in all instances that the issues before us may be resolved as a matter of law. Mindful of this standard, we now turn to an analysis of this case.

I.

KG & E acknowledges that its failure to clear the track of debris from the temporary crossing constituted a breach of the ITA's provision directing it not to place any obstruction over the track. 2 Rec. vol. II at 4. Nevertheless, KG & E contends the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that a sufficient causal connection existed between the breach of this obligation and the injury to Cole which allowed MoPac to invoke the indemnity provisions of paragraph three. KG & E argues that, at the very least, the language of paragraph three is ambiguous as to the scope of the intended coverage, and should therefore be construed by a jury.

In Kansas, the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a judicial function. Hall v. Mullen, 234 Kan. 1031, 678 P.2d 169, 174 (1984). The initial determination of whether a contract provision is ambiguous is likewise a question of law. McBride Elec., Inc. v. Putt's Tuff, Inc., 9 Kan.App.2d 548, 685 P.2d 316, 321 (1984). "When the intent of the parties to a contract is clearly ascertainable by construing the document from its four corners it is not considered ambiguous; although some terms may be conflicting, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible and rules of construction applicable to ambiguous contracts do not apply." Brown v. Lang, 234 Kan. 610, 675 P.2d 842, 846 (1984). Accord Stauth v. Brown, 241 Kan. 1, 734 P.2d 1063, 1069 (1987).

We agree with the district court that the ITA is plain, unambiguous, and properly construed as a matter of law. KG & E's assertion that MoPac must show something akin to proximate cause before it is entitled to indemnification simply is not supported by the language of paragraph three. KG & E agreed to indemnify MoPac for any claim "in any manner caused by, arising out of or connected with" the failure of KG & E to keep the track clear...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP