Conway v. Belt Ry. Co. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 22 September 1967
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 50367
• Citation: 232 N.E.2d 283,88 Ill.App.2d 134
• Parties: Leo William CONWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENWOOD LUMBER, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 283

232 N.E.2d 283

88 Ill.App.2d 134

Leo William CONWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENWOOD LUMBER, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 50367.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Sept. 22, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1967.

Richard F. Koproske and Glen H. Carrier, Chicago, for Belt Railway Co. of Chicago, defendant, third-party plaintiff, appellant.

Ernst Liebman, Washington, D.C., Charles Pressman, Pressman & Hartunian, Chicago, for Leo William Conway, plaintiff-appellee.

Berchem, Schwantes & Thuma, Chicago, Michael J. Thuma, Chicago, for Greenwood Lumber, Inc., of counsel, third-party defendant-appellee.

ENGLISH, Presiding Justice.

Defendant Belt Railway appeals from a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in an action for injuries sustained on August 12, 1958, while unloading beams from a gondola car delivered to plaintiff's employer, Greenwood Lumber, Inc., by The Belt Railway Company. There were six beams, each 49 feet in length, 9 inches wide and 'V' shaped at the middle, packaged in two bundles, three beams to a bundle. Each bundle weighed about 8,780 pounds and was loaded with the 'V' resting on the flooring of the car, with each end about 4 feet from the floor. Vertical timbers, or 'stakes,' had been placed around the sides of the car and between the two bundles to keep the beams from touching the sides and each other. At each end of the gondola car a 'six-by-eight' timber was bolted to and lay across the top and width of the car under the protruding ends of the beams, thus forming a cradle which held the ends of the beams off the floor and kept them from tipping forward or backward.

On August 7, 1958, the six beams, weighing a total of 17,560 pounds, had been loaded by Super Structures, Inc., in Albert Lea, Minnesota, into gondola car No. 2715 of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company for ultimate delivery to the King Building Supply Company in Chicago, Illinois. The car was made of steel, with a length of about 65 feet and sides approximately 3 1/2 to 4 feet high. The Rock Island Railroad transported the beams to Chicago, where the car was turned over to the Belt Railway for delivery to Greenwood Lumber, Inc. The Belt Railway is owned by some twelve other railroads and serves as an interchange railroad in and around Chicago, taking railway cars delivered to it by one railroad and redelivering the cars to industries or to other railroads for further transportation.

When the car was turned over to Belt by the Rock Island, two inspectors of Belt inspected the car at some time between 1:00 and 2:00 A.M. on August 10, 1958, and found nothing wrong with the car or its load. On August 11, 1958, the car, with its load of beams, was pushed by a locomotive off the main Belt line down a slight grade onto the single east-west track in the Greenwood yard. Mr. Bournazos, the president of Greenwood, saw that damage had occurred to the load, and notified Belt to send an inspector. Mr. Rodeck, of Belt, went to the Greenwood premises to inspect the load and found that a cradle, used to support the beams in the west end of the car, had broken, that the southern bundle had shifted to the west at least two feet and was titled to one side so it was lying against the northern bundle. He also determined that some damage had occurred, but could not assess the full extent with the bundles still in the car.

At trial, Rodeck testified as to the customary procedures of Belt and to his actions on August 11. (Since plaintiff and defendant both consider Rodeck's testimony to have great bearing on this appeal but differ as to the interpretation this court should adopt, we must examine the testimony in some detail.) Inspectors for Belt inspect each car as Belt takes delivery. They check for damage to the car and also to see whether the lading may have shifted or otherwise become unsafe. As we read the record, Rodeck meant that this safety element applies to further switching operations of Belt and has no application to whether or not the lading would be unsafe for unloading purposes. When asked specifically, 'What was the purpose of determining whether or not a load had shifted?' Rodeck answered:

Well, it would be for our protection more than anything else, because if the load is shifted there's in all probability damage to that load, not only damage, but there is a possibility that In the process of switching, this load could become undone from the car and somebody could get hurt. (Emphasis supplied.)

Continuing, it is customary for a car inspector, on finding an unsafe condition, to attach a green tag, approximately 3 8 inches, indicating, 'the initial, the number, and the time the car was mail-ordered, the road we received the car from, the track it came in on, what yard it was received in, and who the inspector was that made the inspection.' He found car No. 2715 and its lading too in 'bad order condition,' but did not affix a green bad-order tag even though he had some tags in his automobile a short distance away. Rodeck said the car was unsafe to move because the lading had shifted. As to why he did not 'green tag' it, there is no direct testimony, but he did testify that the usual procedure was to inspect cars in the Belt yards and to green tag them at that time. There was no testimony that an inspection made on premises of a consignee ever required a green tag, and consistent with our interpretation of the purpose of such a tag, there would seem to be no need to tag a car as unsafe for further switching because of shifted lading once that car has been delivered to the place where the lading is to be removed.

A second type of form, a 'bad order form,' MCG--40, was generally completed when a car was received in bad condition. This form would show damage to a car and was for the internal use of the railroad to indicate 'what is to be done with or to the car.' Rodeck did not fill out one of these, but it is not contended that he found damages or defects in the car itself. Rodeck did complete a 'The Belt Railway Company of Chicago Inspector's Report of Loss of Damaged Freight,' which briefly described the visible damage, and noted that, 'Due to the fact the car was not unloaded the full extent of damage could not be determined * * *. Mr. Finnegan--Claim agent--notified.' Rodeck then left the Greenwood premises. According to his testimony, he 'did not instruct (the Greenwood people) how to unload (the car, nor did he) offer to have the railroad unload it.'

Bournazos testified that he proceeded to unload the car on Rodeck's 'go-ahead' sign in order to determine the full extent of the damage. There was evidence that King Building Supply Co., the ultimate receiver of the beams, was in a hurry to get their order from Greenwood. There was no evidence that Greenwood rejected the load or did anything to indicate more than the fact that they might file a claim for damages incurred through the shifting of the lading while in transit. On cross-examination, Bournazos testified that the purpose of Rodeck's inspection was only to establish damage to the beams (King Building Supply did subsequently make a claim), and that King was the company for whom the beams were being unloaded, since the job of Greenwood was to receive, unload, and take the beams to a work site.

On August 12, 1966, Mr. Bournazos and two of Greenwood's employees, Nicholson and plaintiff Conway, proceeded to unload the car. They chained the west end of the south beam to the side of the car as a preacautionary measure, but left the east end of the beam free. Using a chain-hoist and a fork lift truck, they raised the north beam to about four feet from the floor of the car, the greatest height their equipment would permit, preparatory to swinging the north beam out over the side of the car and then to the ground. At this point, Bournazos was operating the fork lift truck and Nicholson the overhead electric hoist. Before the beam could be swung clear of the car, a four-by-four stake had to be removed from the north side near the east end of the car where it had been attached as one of several protecting stakes used to keep the beams from the sides of the car during transit. The top of the stake projected above the side of the car and its height exceeded the lifting capacity of the equipment. Plaintiff argues that the north beam had to be lifted before the stake could be removed. Defendant maintains that Greenwood forgot to remove the stake and did so after the lifting of the north beam and at great peril to plaintiff, and that therefore the employer's negligence was the chargeable cause of plaintiff's injuries.

Plaintiff left the car from the west end during the raising of the north beam. He then re-entered the car at the west end, walked the length of the car under the raised beams to a point near the east end where the stake was attached. With the aid of a pair of pliers, he removed some wire from the stake, tossed it to the ground and turned to leave the car from the east end when he saw the east end (the end that had been left unchained) of the south bundle slowly moving toward him. It was then only a few inches away and he vainly put out his hands to stop it but the beams pinned him against the side of the car. He was squeezed until he turned blue and after Bournazos and Nicholson managed to place supports under the north bundle and employ the fork lift to free...