Container Corp. of America v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1981
• Docket Number: No. XX-231,XX-231
• Citation: 401 So.2d 936
• Parties: CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a corporation, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 936

401 So.2d 936

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a corporation, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. XX-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 29, 1981.

Mattox S. Hair, Tracey I. Arpen, Jr. and Bridget P. Beisner of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Philip A. Webb, III, Douglas E. Myers, Jr., of Webb, Swain & Watson, Jacksonville, for appellee.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

Container Corporation appeals from a partial summary judgment requiring Container to indemnify Seaboard for any judgment plaintiff Bryan, Seaboard's injured switchman, may recover against Seaboard as a result of falling over a scrap rail that was left sticking out of the ground near the side track by which Seaboard trains served Container. We affirm.

Without regard for any nondelegable duties owed by Seaboard to its employees, the obligations between Seaboard and Container are fixed by their contract, which provided that the side trackage was Container's and that Container "will bear the cost and hereby assumes the duty of maintaining said trackage in safe condition ...." Container further assumed "the duty of keeping the right of way adjacent ... clean and free of all ... objects which may be hazardous or dangerous to those engaged in the operation of" Seaboard's trains, and expressly agreed to indemnify Seaboard for any judgment arising out of an injury "caused by or contributed to by the failure" of Container to maintain the track and right of way.

Container, referring to Seaboard's alleged negligence in failing to provide switchman Bryan a safe place to work, urges that any concurring negligence of both contracting parties in maintaining the premises should result in an equal sharing of the loss, by virtue of the further agreement that:

(Container) will indemnify and hold (Seaboard) harmless for loss, damage or injury from any act or omission of (Container), his employees or agents, to the person or property of the parties hereto and their employees, and to the person or property of any other person or corporation, while on or about the track, and if any claim or liability other than from fire shall arise from the joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto, it shall be borne by them equally. (emphasis supplied.)

Giving all terms of the contract some reasonable meaning, we think it clear, as did the circuit judge, that as between the parties Container obligated itself to...