Ward v. Denver & RGWR Co., Civ. A. No. 4180.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
Writing for the CourtLeo Sanders Moses, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff
Citation119 F. Supp. 112
Decision Date09 February 1954
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 4180.
PartiesWARD 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

119 F. Supp. 113
to dismiss the third-party complaint. This action was originally instituted by the plaintiff against defendant for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff while in the course of his employment. At the time his employer was the Coleman Motors Corporation, the third-party defendant herein. It is alleged that such injuries were suffered by plaintiff when a door from a railroad car of the defendant, which he was engaged in unloading, fell off of its hinges and struck him

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
11 practice notes
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 30, 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • September 24, 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • November 22, 1961
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • September 18, 1975
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • September 30, 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • September 24, 1985
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • November 22, 1961
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • September 18, 1975
    ...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......
  • 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