Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Rochelle
Decision Date | 11 February 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 13213.,13213. |
Citation | 252 F.2d 730 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mrs. Josie S. ROCHELLE, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Giles M. Rochelle, Deceased, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John B. Mack, Memphis, Tenn. (Clarence Clifton, Memphis, on the brief; Clifton & Mack, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas R. Prewitt, Memphis, Tenn. (Armstrong, McCadden, Allen, Braden & Goodman, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel), for appellee.
Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises out of a railway crossing accident at Green Corner Crossing in Carroll County, Tennessee. Defendant's1 freight train, traveling 40 to 45 miles per hour, collided with the 1949 Plymouth car of plaintiff's decedent, driving across the track. Decedent, a United States rural mail carrier, was on his regular route at his regular time. Defendant's train was over an hour earlier than usual and it did not follow its practice of whistling for the crossing, as the conductor stated the train did for all crossings. The crew testified that they were keeping the lookout ahead required by statute but they did not see decedent until he was before them on the track. The train ran at least 3,100 feet after the collision. The crossing, which was used by school buses and persons on both sides of the track, was approached by an upgrade on a gravel road which three witnesses described as steep. One stated in effect that it would be practically impossible to get up the incline without going into low gear. The photographs in evidence are not particularly helpful. They indicate some grade and show a very rough road of either heavy gravel or slag.
Liability was asserted under the common law and also under the Tennessee Lookout Statute which reads as follows:
The jury rendered a general verdict in favor of plaintiff.
A preliminary contention is based upon the court's refusal to sustain defendant's motion to compel the joinder of the United States as coplaintiff in the action upon the ground that it is an assignee of plaintiff under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 15, § 751 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq., and hence is the real party in interest. The pertinent portions of the statute read as follows:
5 U.S.C. § 783, 5 U.S.C.A. § 783 of the same Act provides:
"The commission is authorized to make necessary rules and regulations for the enforcement of this chapter, and shall decide all questions arising under this chapter."
The Regulations are embodied in 20 Code of Regulations, Sections 3.1 to 3.6, inclusive. The pertinent regulations are as follows:
This action is prosecuted in the name of decedent's wife and administratrix, plaintiff herein. Defendant contends, however, that an instrument executed by plaintiff on March 8, 1956, constitutes an assignment accepted by the Bureau and that the cause of action has vested in the United States. The instrument reads as follows:
Under 5 U.S.C. § 751 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq., the rights of the claimant are governed exclusively by the statutory provisions and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. United States v. Klein, 8 Cir., 153 F.2d 55, 59.
While the statute gives considerable control to the Bureau of Federal Employees' Compensation, this control is not a substitute, where joinder of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.
...the submission of one issue. The plaintiff cites two cases from the Sixth Circuit, in support of this theory. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Rochelle, 252 F. 2d 730, C.A. 6, and Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company v. Smith, 264 F.2d 428, C.A. 6. These cases are both diversity ca......
-
Volasco Products Company v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company
...the submission of one issue. The plaintiff cites two cases from the Sixth Circuit, in support of this theory. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Rochelle, 252 F.2d 730, C.A.6, and Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company v. Smith, 264 F.2d 428, C.A.6. These cases are both diversity cases......
-
EL Cheeney Company v. Gates
...Larsen v. Chicago & N. W. R., 7 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 841; Lee v. Pennsylvania R., 2 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 226; Louisville & Nashville R. v. Rochelle, 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F. 2d 730. 5 This element is quite distinct from the question whether the employer has consented to the use of a company-own......
-
Busey v. Washington
...in failing to require the United States to be made a party and in support of this view rely on the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Rochelle, 252 F.2d 730, C.C.A. (Sixth Circuit) and authorities collected Defendants also contend in their motion that the submission to the j......