Ward v. Denver & RGWR Co., Civ. A. No. 4180.
| Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado |
| Writing for the Court | Leo Sanders Moses, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff |
| Citation | 119 F. Supp. 112 |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4180. |
| Parties | WARD v. DENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. (COLEMAN MOTORS CORP., third-party defendant). |
119 F. Supp. 112
WARD
v.
DENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. (COLEMAN MOTORS CORP., third-party defendant).
Civ. A. No. 4180.
United States District Court D. Colorado.
February 9, 1954.
Leo Sanders Moses, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
T. R. Woodrow, T. A. Chisholm, Denver, Colo., for defendant and third-party plaintiff.
Sheldon & Nordmark, Denver, Colo., for third-party defendant.
KNOUS, District Judge.
This matter is presently before this court upon third-party defendant's motion
The defendant moved for leave to make The Coleman Motors Corporation a third-party defendant pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. In its affidavit in support thereof the defendant alleged that the railroad car was not under its management and control, but was under the exclusive possession, management and control of the third-party defendant, and further that any negligence involved was that of the employees, including the plaintiff, of the third-party defendant.
Leave was granted to defendant to file a third-party complaint against The Coleman Motors Corporation as third-party defendant, and in response thereto the third-party defendant interposed the pending motion to dismiss, which is premised on the conceded fact that, as the employer of the plaintiff, it is under and covered by the Colorado Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 97, Colorado Statutes Annotated 1935.
The question thus squarely presented is whether under that Workmen's Compensation Act, an employer who is subject to the provisions of said act can be made a third-party defendant in an action wherein one of its employees is suing a stranger to the employer-employee relationship for injuries sustained while engaged in the course of his employment.
As was mentioned in the oral arguments on this motion, no ruling has been handed down upon this point by the Colorado Supreme Court. And as was further stated by counsel, decisions reached in other jurisdictions upon this question are in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
...exclusive as well as comprehensive remedies for injuries that are covered by the Act. See, e.g., Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.Ry. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D.Colo.1954); Ryan, 196 Colo. 30, 580 P.2d 794; Ellis v. Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 166, 602 P.2d 895 (1979). Citi......
-
Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc., No. 84-K-1707.
...Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148, 150 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928, 931 (1969); Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954). Lake Shore's claim for negligence is a common law action "for and on account of" the employee's personal injury. Acc......
-
Fidelity and Casualty Co. of NY v. JA Jones Const. Co., No. LR 61 c 17.
...S.Ct. at 236; Lunderberg v. Bierman, supra, 63 N.W.2d at 360-365, 43 A.L.R.2d at 873-877. Compare Ward v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954), with American District Telegraph Co. v. Kittleson, IV One further contention by defendant remains to be considered. As noted......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc.
...for indemnity in the face of the exclusive liability provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954), the employee sued the railroad for injuries incurred when the door of the railroad car fell off and struck him. The railroad......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
...exclusive as well as comprehensive remedies for injuries that are covered by the Act. See, e.g., Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.Ry. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D.Colo.1954); Ryan, 196 Colo. 30, 580 P.2d 794; Ellis v. Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 166, 602 P.2d 895 (1979). Citi......
-
Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc., No. 84-K-1707.
...Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148, 150 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928, 931 (1969); Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954). Lake Shore's claim for negligence is a common law action "for and on account of" the employee's personal injury. Acc......
-
Fidelity and Casualty Co. of NY v. JA Jones Const. Co., No. LR 61 c 17.
...S.Ct. at 236; Lunderberg v. Bierman, supra, 63 N.W.2d at 360-365, 43 A.L.R.2d at 873-877. Compare Ward v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954), with American District Telegraph Co. v. Kittleson, IV One further contention by defendant remains to be considered. As noted......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc.
...for indemnity in the face of the exclusive liability provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954), the employee sued the railroad for injuries incurred when the door of the railroad car fell off and struck him. The railroad......