Williams v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 14652-14655.

Decision Date28 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14652-14655.,14652-14655.
Citation303 F.2d 323
PartiesJack G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, and Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Defendants-Appellees. Melva COX, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel Robert Cox, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, and Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Defendants-Appellees. Violet RICHARDSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Ray Walter, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, and Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Defendants-Appellees (two cases).
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Schwenker, Teaford, Brothers & Bernard, Columbus, Ohio, Bernard Bernard, Columbus, Ohio, of counsel, for appellants.

Alexander, Ebinger, Wenger & Holschuh, Columbus, Ohio, John D. Holschuh, Columbus, Ohio, of counsel, for appellee.

Before CECIL and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellee, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, delivered a railroad hopper car, owned by the defendant-appellee, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, to the Detroit Steel Corporation's plant at Portsmouth, Ohio on July 20, 1957. The New York Central Railroad Company, the initiating carrier, had loaded the car with limestone and transferred it to the Baltimore & Ohio for delivery to the consignee, Detroit Steel Corporation, aforesaid. The limestone was unloaded on July 21, 1957 at Detroit Steel by its employees but the car was retained by the steel company for use within its plant area to haul slag from the "skull cracker," where the slag had been crushed and screened, to the blast furnaces. The accident from which the four suits herein arose, occurred as the aforesaid car was thus employed on July 23, 1957. Jack G. Williams, Joseph Ray Walter and Daniel Robert Cox, employees of the Detroit Steel Corporation, were unloading the car when it tipped over on its side injuring Williams and Walter, who subsequently died from his injuries, and killing Cox instantly. Two of the suits herein were filed by the Administratrix of the estate of Joseph Ray Walter; one for the injuries sustained by him prior to his death and the other for his wrongful death. The four suits are consolidated by stipulation of the parties for the purpose of this appeal.

The plaintiff's actions were based on the alleged negligence of the defendants in failing to properly inspect the car herein before delivering it to Detroit Steel and in supplying a defective car.

Motions for summary judgments were filed by the defendants under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. These motions were supported by interrogatories, depositions and affidavits. The facts disclosed by such interrogatories, depositions and affidavits, if not controverted, negatived any causes of action in the plaintiffs. Such facts were not controverted. The plaintiffs offered no counter affidavits or other evidence to support the allegations of their complaints, as they were satisfied to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Connors, C-2-83-896.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • October 23, 1985
    ...justified, within the purview of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in granting relief thereon. Williams v. Baltimore & O. R.R., 303 F.2d 323, 324 (6th Cir.1962). Accord R.E. Cruise, Inc. v. Bruggeman, 508 F.2d 415, 416 (6th Cir.1975); Daily Press, Inc. v. United Press Internat......
  • Hout v. City of Mansfield
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • April 23, 2008
    ...general allegations that the Court will not consider in determining the summary judgment motions. See Williams v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 303 F.2d 323, 324 (6th Cir. 1962). 14. Plaintiffs Neumann, Jessee, and Workman did not ask to file any grievances after 25 August 2004 while Plain......
  • Klausing v. Whirlpool Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 25, 1985
    ...justified, within the purview of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in granting relief thereon. Williams v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 303 F.2d 323, 324 (6th Cir.1962). Accord R.E. Cruise, Inc. v. Bruggeman, 508 F.2d 415, 416 (6th Cir.1975); Daily Press, Inc. v. United Press Internati......
  • INA Aviation Corp. v. United States, 75-C-1086.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 1, 1979
    ...Gamm, 525 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1975); Bland v. Norfolk & Southern Railroad Co., 406 F.2d 863 (4th Cir. 1969); Williams v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 303 F.2d 323 (6th Cir. 1962). "The question whether summary judgment is appropriate in any case is one to be decided upon the particular fact......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT