Erie R. Co. v. Caldwell

• Decision Date: 09 April 1920
• Docket Number: 3339.
• Citation: 264 F. 947
• Parties: ERIE R. CO. et al. v. CALDWELL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

264 F. 947

ERIE R. CO. et al. v. CALDWELL.

No. 3339.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 9, 1920

Cook McGowan, Foote, Bushnell & Lamb, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error.

Anderson & Lamb and J. J. Tetlow, all of Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant in error.

Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.

DONAHUE Circuit Judge.

On the 2d day of March, 1918, Frank Caldwell was injured while assisting in pulling a train of cars off a 'cripple' track in the yard of defendant railroad company at Kent Ohio. Through a defect in the drawbar the train became separated upon a grade in the track, and the detached part of the train started backward and had acquired a speed of about 5 miles an hour, when it collided with an obstruction on the track. At the time the cars became separated plaintiff, who was one of the crew performing this work, was standing about 40 feet from the train, and as soon as he realized what had occurred and the danger of a collision, and for the purpose of preventing the same, he climbed upon one of the cars and set the brake. While performing this service the collision occurred, resulting in personal injury to the defendant in error. The action in the District Court was brought to recover damages for this injury. It is admitted that at the time of the accident plaintiff, as well as the carrier, was engaged in interstate commerce.

It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error that the trial court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant, the Erie Railroad Company, to direct a verdict in its favor, for the reason that in pursuance of the act of Congress of the 29th of August, 1916 (Comp. St. Sec. 1974a), and the proclamation of the President of the United States issued on the 26th day of December, 1917, that the possession and control of the Erie Railroad Company's property and transportation system were vested in the Director General of Railroads, who was then operating the same. This motion was renewed at the close of all the evidence.

The trial court should have sustained this motion and dismissed the Erie Railroad Company from the suit. The Director General of Railroads having lawfully taken full possession and control of this company's property, the company itself could not be held liable for negligence resulting in injury to employes or others during the time its property was being operated by governmental agencies over which it had no control. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Northern Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. North Dakota ex rel., 250 U.S. 135, 39 Sup.Ct 502, 63 L.Ed. 897, definitely settles and declares the paramount authority of the Director General, and is controlling in this case.

However the...