Hutchins v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 10414.,10414. |
| Citation | 162 F.2d 189 |
| Parties | HUTCHINS v. AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Harley S. Cook, of Cleveland, Ohio (A. H. Dudnik, and Harley S. Cook, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
William Kelly, of Akron, Ohio (Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and J. C. Davis, all of Cleveland, Ohio, and Wise, Roetzel, Maxon, Kelly & Andress, Chester G. Wise, and William A. Kelly, all of Akron, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Erwin Hutchins, appeals from a judgment of the District Court sustaining a motion of appellee, a common carrier by railroad, for a directed verdict in its behalf at the close of the evidence in an action for personal injuries brought by the appellant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Sections 51 through 60, Title 45 U.S.C.A. No question is made about the applicability of the Act, and the sole question is whether the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
The accident complained of occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on April 9, 1945. The appellant, who lived at Medina, Ohio, had gone with other employees of the appellee to Akron, Ohio, and after completing the assigned work there at about 4:00 p.m. began the return trip from Akron to Medina accompanied by two fellow workers, Blewitt and Grimm. They were traveling, by permission, on a 4-wheel motor car, going west over the main line of the appellee. They were told by the train dispatcher to take the siding at the Barberton Belt Line to let train No. 90 pass and that he could give no definite information with regard to the Copley run. Appellant knew that the Copley run was between him and Medina and that he should look out for it. On arrival at the Copley yard they found the main line blocked by a caboose. There was a switch leading off the main track to what was called the run-around track, by means of which the appellant could go south and west around the standing caboose and regain the main line to the west. The appellant was in charge of the operation of the motor car. He gave the main line switch key to Grimm, who threw the switch. Appellant left the main line and entered the run-around track. About 100 feet further west the run-around track was joined by a track from the southeast, known as the Minnesota Mining Track, which curved to the south at a point about 400 feet southeast of its junction with the run-around track. Nothing could be seen around this curve in the Minnesota Mining track. Before leaving the main track the appellant looked toward the Minnesota Mining track and saw nothing moving on it. He operated the motor car westward to a stop about 40 feet east of the switch connecting the run-around track with the Minnesota Mining track. This switch was aligned for the Minnesota Mining track and against the further movement of the motor car. The appellant stopped so that Grimm could go ahead and throw the switch which would permit the motor car to proceed on the run-around track. When he stopped for this switch he again looked back toward the southeast and saw nothing coming on the Minnesota Mining track. Grimm walked ahead, reached the switch, threw it against the Minnesota Mining track and in favor of the motor car, and at the same time motioned the appellant to come ahead. The appellant operated the motor car ahead at a speed of four or five miles per hour. When the front wheels had passed the switch points, but before the rear wheels had reached the points, Grimm threw the switch back into its former position against the motor car, and at the same time shouted a warning. The appellant looked back over his shoulder and saw a gondola car on the Minnesota Mining track about 10 or 15 feet behind him, traveling at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour and going toward the switch entrance into the run-around track. The throwing of the switch by Grimm against the rear wheels of the motor car derailed the motor car which bumped along on the ties for a short distance. The gondola car going through the open switch struck the motor car, threw it and the plaintiff off the track and continued through the run-around track on to the main track to the west, finally coming to a stop on the siding north of the main track at a point about 700 feet west of the place of the accident. In order for Grimm to throw the switch in question he was located at the lever on the south side and was facing toward the east and the Minnesota Mining track. The accident resulted in serious and permanent injuries to the appellant for which he sought damages in the amount of $50,000. The District Judge was of the opinion that the evidence showing the foregoing facts did not sufficiently sustain the allegations of negligence to permit the case to go to the jury and sustained appellee's motion for a directed verdict in its favor.
As a preliminary matter, the record shows that the appeal is taken "from a final judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict, entered in this action on the 11th day of October 1946." However, neither the verdict nor a formal order sustaining the motion for a directed verdict, nor any judgment dismissing the complaint is in the record, as required by Section 75 (g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal includes "Transcript of the testimony, including defendant's motion for a directed verdict and the Court's opinion and order granting same October 11, 1946." The District Court's oral opinion and ruling, given in open court on October 10, 1946, is a part of the record. In it the District Judge after discussing the case and expressing his views stated "The motion for directed verdict will be granted," and later in addressing the jury stated that he had reached the conclusion "that there is no legal right of recovery in this case on behalf of plaintiff," and instructed the first juror to sign a directed verdict on behalf of the defendant. Section 75(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the correction of this omission by direction of this Court that a supplemental record be furnished. Since the defect can be corrected and the record shows what the judgment was to be and that such a final judgment or order was entered on October 11, 1946, and since the parties have proceeded in this appeal in agreement as to the substance and effect of such final order, we believe that for the purposes of expediting disposition of this appeal and the final disposition of the case, the appeal can be disposed of without the necessity of obtaining a supplemental record. Compare Helfer v. Corona Products, 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 612, 615; Lemley v. Christophersen, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 291, 292.
Liability of the appellee for damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Woodby, 12769-12770.
...that drawn by the jury or feel that a conclusion different from that found by the jury is more reasonable. Hutchins v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 189, 192; Edwards v. United States, 6 Cir., 140 F.2d 526, It is not necessary that permission to use the insured automob......
-
Thompson v. Camp
...amended. Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U.S. 54, 63 S.Ct. 444, 87 L.Ed. 610, 143 A.L.R. 967; Hutchins v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 189. Appellant's contention that there was no competent evidence that Camp was riding the cars that were being kicked, rath......
-
Spero-Nelson v. Brown
...regardless of what inference might be drawn by the Court, and accordingly a jury question was presented. Hutchins v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 189, 192; Frank Hemingway, Inc. v. Southport Mills, 5 Cir., 279 F. 237; Universal Products Co. v. Emerson, 6 W.W.Harr. 553......
-
Hart v. Knox County
...Wright, 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 449; Cabel v. United States, 1 Cir., 113 F.2d 998; Simms v. Andrews, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 803; Hutchins v. Akron, etc., R. Co., 6 Cir., 162 F.2d 189; Vernon Lumber Corporation v. Harcen Const. Co., 2 Cir., 155 F.2d 348; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Ziegler, 3 Cir., 15......