Baker v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date06 December 1957
Docket NumberNo. 15298,15298
Citation309 S.W.2d 92
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
PartiesDovie Ray BAKER et al., Appellants, v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO., Appellee.

Caldwell, Baker & Jordan and Ken R. Davey, Dallas, for appellants.

Robertson, Jackson, Payne, Lancaster & Walker, and D. L. Case, Dallas, for appellee.

YOUNG, Justice.

The suit is prosecuted by appellant as administratrix of the Estate of Claude Baker, deceased husband, also as next friend of their three minor children, claiming liability against appellee Railroad Company for his death which occurred August 20, 1952. From a jury trial and finding of contributory negligence on part of said Claude Baker, a defendant's judgment resulted, and this appeal; the trial court rejecting plaintiff's assertion of rights pursuant to 45 U.S.C.A. Sec. 51 et seq., Federal Employers' Liability Act. Defendant Railroad had made W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc., a party hereto, and has appealed from the trial court's adverse ruling on its cross-action for indemnity against Nichols Company in event of liability to plaintiffs; details of which phase of the litigation will later appear.

On April 1, 1952 the Railroad and Nichols Company had entered into a written contract for grouting work between specified mile posts (pumping of sand and cement into roadbed under pressure for strengthening and stabilization). The Nichols Company was engaged in performance of this contract and Claude Baker, deceased, was on the job as one of its employees when struck by defendant's eastbound train. This contract is therefore quoted in full, together with supplement thereto of later date:

'This Agreement, executed in duplicate April 1, 1952 by and between The Texas and Pacific Railway Company, herein called Carrier, first party, and W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc., Dallas, Texas, herein called Contractor, second party; Witnesseth

'For and in consideration of the keeping by each of the parties hereto of the several covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is hereby mutually agreed as follows:

'1. Contractor shall within thirty (30) days after the execution of this contract begin and diligently prosecute the work described herein until completed in a first class and workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction of the Carrier's Chief Engineer or his duly authorized representative. The work to be done by the Contractor shall consist of:

'Furnishing labor, equipment and water for grouting roadbed on Carrier's double track main line at locations between Mile Post 215, near Dallas, and Mile Post 230, near Arlington, Texas, as specified by Carrier's Chief Engineer or his representative. Area to be grouted consists of a total or approximately 42,040 track feet.

'2. For the faithful performance of the work by the Contractor, The Carrier shall make and Contractor shall accept payment at prices or rates as follows: $0.10 per linear track foot of roadbed grouted, plus $0.03 per cubic foot of sand pumped into roadbed measured dry. Payment hereunder is to be made promptly upon completion and acceptance of the work, if completed within 30 days; otherwise, payment shall be made at the end of each 30 days as the work progresses. Contractor, if called upon, shall furnish Carrier written evidence that he has paid in full all amounts that may be due by him to any and all persons who may perform labor or furnish material or supplies in connection with said work; and in the event he fails to furnish satisfactory written evidence thereof carrier may withhold payment pending receipt of such written evidence.

'As one of the considerations hereof Carrier, insofar as it lawfully may do so shall transport free to the site of the work and, after completion of the work therefrom not exceeding an equal distance, via solely the line of Railway of Carrier, Contractor, Officers, men, teams and equipment actually engaged on or in connection with the work, but excluding fuel, supplies and explosives; and all such transportation shall be at Contractor's risk in case of accident or damage.

'3. In the performance of any of the work or services herein provided, or any part thereof, Contractor shall occupy the status of an independent contractor, and shall not be subject to the detailed supervision and direction of Carrier, but responsible to Carrier only for the final results in the accomplishment of such work or services.

'4. Contractor shall and does hereby assume full responsibility for and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Carrier harmless from any and all liability, damage and expense which the Carrier may incur or suffer by reason of (a) any breach by Contract of any of the covenants herein contained, (b) injury to or death of any persons, or loss, damage or destruction of or delay to any property, arising out of, resulting from or incident to the performance or nonperformance of any of the services and obligations herein assumed by Contractor and (c) transportation of persons and property by Carrier in conformity with paragraph 2 hereof.

'5. Contractor assumes any and all liability for and agrees to indemnify Carrier against any and all taxes, contributions and comparable payments imposed by or arising under any municipal, State of Federal law, order or regulation upon or incident to the payment by Contractor of wages, compensation or other forms of remuneration to persons in his employ, performing the services provided for herein, or any part thereof. * * *'

(Supplement)

'December 2, 1952.

File: 330-2

'W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc.

3015 Grand Avenue

Dallas, 10, Texas

Gentlemen:

'Please refer to our contract dated April 1, 1952, covering grouting of roadbed between our Mile Post 215, near Dallas, and Mile Post 230, near Arlington, unit prices covered by this contract being 10cents per lineal foot of roadbed grouted plus 30cents per cubic foot of sand pumped into roadbed, measured dry.

'The above mentioned contract, while not limited as to period of time, is limited as to location of work. We wish to continue this work during the year 1953, working to vicinity of Mile Post 244, just east of Fort Worth. Preliminary survey indicates that we will wish to grout approximately 20,000 lineal feet in addition to that covered by present contract, although it may develop more grouting than this is desired as we proceed with the work.

'If you are agreeable to doing this grouting work as indicated under the same terms as provided in contract dated April 1, 1952, please so indicate by accepting in space provided below and returning original of this letter to me for our record. Yours very truly, (Signed) R. J. Gammie, Chief Engineer. Accepted: W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc. By (Signed) W. E. Nichols, W. E. Nichols Title: President.'

Above contract was entered into as a result of appellee having advertised for bids, receiving one other bid from a Fort Worth concern.

Appellants predicate their claim to benefits under the Federal Employers' Liability Act on the following allegations of petition on which they went to trial: 'IV. That on or about the 1st day of April, 1952, and the 2nd day of December, 1952, Defendant, The Texas & Pacific Railway Company, entered into contracts and agreements with W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc. whereby the said W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc. was to perform certain maintenance and repair work on Defendant's roadbed in Dallas County, Texas; that said work was a part of the regular maintenance and upkeep of Defendant's line of railway track then in use in interstate commerce and said contract, while purporting to constitute W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc., an independent contractor, was in truth and in fact an effort and attempt to evade the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act; that Defendant, Texas & Pacific Railway Company, at all times mentioned in this petition, had the right to control the details and the manner, means and method by which W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc. performed said work.' (Emphasis ours.)

Primary points of appeal center on the trial court's refusal to submit plaintiff's issues 1, 12 and 13. Issues 1 and 13 being similar in form, No. 1 only is quoted along with No. 12: (1) 'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that with reference to the work W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc., was performing at the time Claude Baker, deceased, was killed, W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc., was not an independent contractor?' (followed by definition of 'independent contractor'). Issue 12: 'What do you find in terms of percentage to be the entire causal negligence, if any, attributable to Claude Baker, deceased, and that attributable to defendant, Texas & Pacific Railway Company? Answer: Attributable to Claude Baker, deceased, ___ per cent. Answer: Attributable to The Texas & Pacific Railway Company, ___ per cent.'

Original petition of Dovie Ray Baker was in form of an action at common law, suing individually and as next friend of the minor children of herself and husband; in first amended original petition asserting coverage of the Federal Employers' Liability Act; in October 1955, qualifying as administratrix, and in third amended original petition of September 1956, suing as 'personal representative' of deceased as required by sec. 53, Title 45 U.S.C.A.; and alternatively as at common law.

This is a second trial of the case. Prior to any suit, however, but following the death of Claude Baker, appellant wife had filed her notice of fatal injury and claim for workman's compensation benefits with the Industrial Accident Board of Texas; both instruments reciting that the employer of deceased was W. H. Nichols & Company, Inc. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, compensation carrier, in due course recognized liability and made a lump sum settlement on account of the death of Claude Baker, paying workmen's compensation benefits in the sum of $7,919.94. It was developed from witnesses for plaintiff at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ex parte Western Ry. of Ala.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1968
    ...an employee of the contractor only. The lower court's decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas. (See Baker v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., Tex.Civ.App., 309 S.W.2d 92.) In reversing the judgment of the Texas court, the Supreme Court of the United States 'Although we find no decis......
  • Baker v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1959
    ...death as to entitle him to the protection of the Act. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for the respondent, 309 S.W.2d 92, and the Texas Supreme Court refused an application for a writ of error. We granted certiorari, 358 U.S. 878, 79 S.Ct. 118, 3 L.Ed.2d 108, t......
  • Dauray v. Gaylord
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1966
    ...the court was correct in so holding. Berne v. Keith, 361 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.Civ.App., writ ref. n.r.e.); Baker v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 309 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.Civ.App., writ ref. n.r.e.); Hall v. Hall, 158 Tex. 95, 308 S.W.2d 12; Moore v. Dilworth, 142 Tex. 538, 179 S.W.2d 940; Cheek v. Metzger, 116......
  • Baker v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 1959
    ...& Miller, D. L. Case; Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, for appellees. YOUNG, Justice. Our disposition of above cause (309 S.W.2d 92, Writ ref. N.R.E.) being one of affirmance, it became unnecessary to pass on the trial court's ruling, adverse to the Railroad, concerning ......
  • 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