Griffith v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
| Decision Date | 23 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 7868. |
| Citation | 162 F. Supp. 809 |
| Parties | Beatrice E. GRIFFITH, Administratrix of the Estate of Roy Griffith, Deceased, v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Paul B. Shawen, Perrysburg, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Charles W. Peckinpaugh, Jr., Toledo, Ohio, S. R. Prince, C. C. Rettberg, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
Defendant moves the Court for summary judgment in its favor as to that portion of plaintiff's complaint seeking damages for loss of wages and reduced pension.
It is not denied that plaintiff's decedent elected to submit his claim for wrongful discharge to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The exhibits filed by defendant in support of its motions clearly bear this out. These exhibits also establish that the National Railroad Adjustment Board denied the claim of plaintiff's decedent. Plaintiff is bound by the decision of this Board. Ramsey v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 1948, 75 F.Supp. 740; Kelly v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., D.C.E.D.Tenn.1948, 75 F. Supp. 737; Michel v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 5 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 224, certiorari denied 1951, 342 U.S. 862, 72 S.Ct. 87, 96 L.Ed. 648; Reynolds v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co., 10 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 673.
The motion for summary judgment as to that portion of plaintiff's complaint seeking damages for loss of wages and reduced pension is sustained.
Defendant moves the Court to dismiss that portion of plaintiff's complaint dealing with monies allegedly due and owing from the relief association of employees of defendant railroad on the ground that the Relief Department is a voluntary unincorporated association and that, therefore, plaintiff has addressed his complaint to the wrong party defendant. With this we agree. Richmond & I. Const. Co. v. Richmond, N., I. & B. R. Co., 6 Cir., 1895, 68 F. 105, 34 L.R.A. 625; Cimprich v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1935, 119 Pa.Super. 5, 180 A. 51; Brennan v. McCoy, D.C.N.D.W.Va. 1940, 34 F.Supp. 865.
The motion to dismiss that portion of plaintiff's complaint dealing with monies allegedly due and owing from the Relief Department is sustained.
An order may be drawn accordingly.
Defendant may, within ten days, prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law drawn in accordance with this Memorandum and plaintiff may, within five days thereafter, prepare and file any exceptions or suggested additions thereto.
Under date of April 18, 1958, plaintiff moved the Court for an order to require defendant to file an answer in this cause. This motion is overruled.
An order may be drawn accordingly.
This cause came on to be heard on the defendant's motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint seeking to recover monies allegedly due and owing to plaintiff from the Relief Department of The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and on the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to that portion of the complaint seeking damages for loss of wages and reduced pension, being all of the issues raised by the complaint, and upon consideration thereof and of the complaint, the affidavits filed by the parties and the briefs of counsel for the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, the court makes and enters herewith its findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff, Beatrice E. Griffith, Administratrix of the Estate of Roy Griffith, deceased, the decedent having died following the institution of this litigation and his administratrix having been duly substituted in his place and stead as plaintiff herein, is, and at all times material herein was, a citizen of the State of Ohio, residing in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, and is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of said estate by appointment of the Probate Court of Lucas County, Ohio.
2. Defendant, The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, is, and at all times material herein was, a citizen of the State of Maryland, with its principal office located in Baltimore, Maryland.
3. This is an action between citizens of different states of the United States, and the amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $3,000.
4. Plaintiff's decedent was employed by the defendant on or about November 9, 1926, as a brakeman and yard foreman and he performed his duties as such in the service of the defendant in and about Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, until on or about November 4, 1946. On said date, plaintiff's decedent, while engaged in the course of his employment, was involved in an accident and as a direct result thereof he sustained serious personal injuries which he claimed left him permanently disabled and unable to perform his work and duties as a brakeman and yard foreman.
5. Following said accident, plaintiff's decedent instituted an action against the defendant in the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, claiming damages in the amount of $50,000 for said personal injuries and permanent disabilities. Subsequent to the institution of said litigation, plaintiff's decedent and the defendant entered into a settlement of the claims involved in said litigation under the terms of which defendant paid to plaintiff's decedent the sum of $13,000 and said action was dismissed with prejudice. At the time of said settlement, on or about November 21, 1947, plaintiff's decedent executed and delivered to the defendant a written resignation reading in part as follows:
"Due to injuries which are presently disabling and which I expect will disable me permanently, please accept my resignation from service of The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company to be effective January 21, 1952."
6. On or about September 20, 1951, plaintiff's decedent advised the defendant that he was cancelling his said resignation and on or about October 5, 1951, he presented himself at defendant's place of business in Toledo, Ohio, for duty as a yard foreman. The defendant refused to reinstate plaintiff's decedent as an employee or to permit him to perform any work as a yard foreman or otherwise. At said time a controversy developed between plaintiff's decedent and the defendant, plaintiff's decedent contending that his resignation was given under a mistake of fact as to his physical condition and the defendant contending that said resignation was an incident to and given in consideration of the settlement of said litigation.
7. Thereafter, plaintiff's decedent, through his collective bargaining agent, the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, submitted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hooser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
...of fact and conclusions of law, proper but not required by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Griffith v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., D.C., 162 F.Supp. 809), a degree of particularity is On5 August 26, 1946, plaintiff Shiels in Cause No. IP 58-C-49 was employed by defendant Railr......