Long v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1904
• Docket Number: 146.
• Citation: 130 F. 870
• Parties: LONG v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

130 F. 870

LONG v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

No. 146.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 14, 1904

E. C Aiken, for plaintiff in error.

James McC. Mitchell, for defendant in error.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error by the plaintiff in the court below to review a judgment for the defendant. Upon the trial the curt directed the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. The assignments of error challenge the correctness of that ruling.

The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. At the time of the accident in which he was injured he was in the employment of the United States Express Company as a messenger, and was engaged in the duties of such employment in an express car on one of the defendant's trains. The accident was caused by a collision between that train and a switching engine of the defendant, owing to the negligence of the employes of the defendant in charge of the switching engine. The contract of employment between the plaintiff and the United States Express Company contained the following provision:

'I understand that I may be required to render services for the company on or about the railroad, stage and steamboat lines used by the company for forwarding property, and that such employment is hazardous; I assume the risk of accident and injury to myself arising out of such employment, and release and indemnify the United States Express Company and the corporations or persons owning or operating said transportation lines from any or all claims that I or my executors or administrators might make, arising out of any such accidents or injuries that may happen to me while so employed.'

By a contract between the United States Express Company and the defendant, in force at the time the plaintiff entered upon his employment and at the time of the accident, it was provided that the defendant should not be or become liable or responsible to any person for any damage or injury happening to or sustained by any employe, servant, or agent of the express company while acting for the express company in or about its business, whether such injury should have been occasioned by or through the negligence, omission, or default of the railroad company, or otherwise, 'it being distinctly understood and agreed that the express company hereby assumes and undertakes to pay and indemnify the railroad company for and against all and every claim and demand for loss and injury of any nature to life, person or property arising from the performance of this contract.'

The trial judge ruled that, in view of the contracts between the plaintiff and the express company, and the express company and the defendant, the defendant was not liable. It is quite unnecessary to refer to the numerous decisions in the state courts on similar or analogous cases. The case of Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company v. Voigt, 176 U.S 498, 20 Sup.Ct. 385, 44 L.Ed. 560, is decisive, and is controlling as authority in this court. In that case Voigt had made a contract with the express company by which, as a condition of risk of all accidents and injuries that he might sustain in the course of his employment by negligence or otherwise, and to indemnify and hold the express company harmless for all claims that might be made against it arising from any claim or recovery on his part for the damages sustained or otherwise, and to release to the company operating the transportation line upon which he might be injured all claims, demands, and causes of action arising out of any such injury, and to ratify all in which the express company had agreed or might agree that its employes should have no cause of action for injuries sustained in the course of their employment upon the line of the transportation company. The express company had made a contract with the Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company substantially like that between the express company and the defendant in the present case. While in an express car upon one of the trains of...