Altemus v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Decision Date | 05 November 1962 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2414,2430. |
Citation | 210 F. Supp. 834 |
Parties | Thomas R. ALTEMUS and Naomi Altemus, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, and Gulf Oil Corporation, corporations of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendants. James K. ORRELL, Jr., Plaintiff, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
James P. D'Angelo, Wilmington, Del., and Charles A. Lord, of Richter, Levy, Lord, Toll & Cavanaugh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Thomas R. Altemus and Naomi Altemus.
C. W. Berl, Jr., of Berl, Potter & Anderson, Wilmington, Del., for Pennsylvania R. Co.
William F. Taylor, of Morford, Young & Conaway, Wilmington, Del., for Gulf Oil Corp. and James K. Orrell, Jr.
Thomas Altemus filed this action against Pennsylvania Railroad (hereinafter "Railroad") and Gulf Oil Corporation (hereinafter "Gulf") to recover for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder while working for the Railroad in Wilmington, Delaware. Defendant-Railroad filed a cross-claim against defendant-Gulf on the theory that Gulf is liable to indemnify it for any liability it may owe to the plaintiff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(g), 28 U.S.C. Gulf now moves for summary judgment in its favor against Railroad's cross-claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (b).
The essential facts are these. A Gulf employee came onto Railroad property to deliver oil. As was customary, a Railroad employee (plaintiff in this case) assisted in the delivery by ascending a ladder supplied by Railroad. The Railroad employee fell from the ladder and injured himself. The sale of oil by Gulf to the Railroad was pursuant to a Pennsylvania Railroad purchase order form which contains the indemnity clause on which Railroad bases its cross-claim. The clause in dispute reads as follows:
Both parties agree that the indemnity clause was a part of the purchase and sale. In other words, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caporossi v. Atlantic City, New Jersey
...U.S. 138, 10 S.Ct. 290, 33 L.Ed. 531 (1889). 26 See note 25, ante. 27 Altemus v. Penna. R. Co., D.C., 32 F. R.D. 7, Id., D.C., 210 F.Supp. 834 (D.C. Dela.1963); McWeeney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 282 F.2d 34 (2 Cir. 1960). 28 28 U.S.C.A. Rule 51; U.S.Dist.Ct.Dist. of New Jersey, Local......
-
Deterjet Corp. v. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP.(HAMILTON STAND. DIV.)
...Alarm Corp., D.C.Del., 206 F.Supp. 432. 8 This Court recently granted summary judgment in such a case. See, Altemus v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., D.C.Del., 210 F.Supp. 834. 9 Dovberg v. Dow Chemical Co., D.C.E.D. Pa., 195 F.Supp. 337, 10 Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464,......
-
American Oil Company v. Hart
...indemnification which attempt to relieve a party of its own negligency are not looked upon with favor. See: Altemus v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, D.C. Del. 1962, 210 F.Supp. 834; City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District, 1956, 141 Cal.App.2d 733, 297 P.2d 752. In order for suc......
-
Sannit v. Aarons
...the plaintiffs." The same rule is applied when indemnification is provided for in agreements other than leases. Altemus v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 210 F.Supp. 834 (D. Del.1962). There Judge Layton held that under Delaware law and the law generally an indemnification agreement would not be i......