Draper v. Erie Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 29 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 13329.,13329.
• Citation: 285 F.2d 255
• Parties: Cedric D. DRAPER v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

285 F.2d 255 (1960)

Cedric D. DRAPER v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant.

No. 13329.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued December 6, 1960.

Decided December 29, 1960.

James M. Arensberg, Pittsburgh, Pa. (B. A. Karlowitz, Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Dennis C. Harrington, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Gene K. Lynch, McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in which the plaintiff claimed both under the F.E.L.A., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51, and the Safety Appliances Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 11. He recovered a verdict of $85,000 on which judgment has been entered. The defendant complains of the trial judge's refusal to give an instruction that the sole basis of any verdict which the jury could return against the defendant must rest upon a finding that he fell from the car by the inefficiency of the brake to function properly upon its operation in the normal usual manner. In plainer language, the defendant wanted the F.E. L.A. claim removed from the case. In addition, he asked and was refused a directed verdict.

We think the court committed no error in allowing the jury to consider both the F.E.L.A. and the S.A.A. aspects of the case. The plaintiff and a fellow employee were engaged in the operation of cutting out some cars from a freight train which were to be moved to another track, then returned to the first track upon the completion of hooking up some other cars into the train. They were assured by the employee in charge of the whole operation that no other cars would be sent down onto the second track before twenty minutes. However, according to the testimony, they were so sent and the result was to start the standing cars moving in a direction toward an open switch which would let them out on to a passenger track where a train was due shortly. The plaintiff jumped upon the moving car and started to operate the Ajax-type brake. We think there is enough here to show that what could be found as negligence on the part of the defendant's employee created a dangerous situation which might well have contributed to the faulty operation of the brake and the plaintiff's injury.

The plaintiff's injury came as follows according to his testimony: He climbed up the end of this freight car and started to tighten the brake in order to stop the car. He said that as he turned it he got some pressure but felt that there was not enough brake force to accomplish the necessary result so he gave another turn and the brake, according to his testimony, flew forward clockwise throwing him out of position and to the ground. The defendant has made much argument about the failure to prove that the plaintiff operated the brake in the normal and usual manner. And there was talk to the effect that the plaintiff had not shown that he had set the ratchet or "dog" of this brake so as to make his operation safe. All this talk is beside the point. The accident, as the plaintiff described it, did not come...