Longo v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Co., NYC Sys.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 15342.,15342. |
| Citation | 355 F.2d 443 |
| Parties | Rocco D. LONGO, Appellant, v. The PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Gordon E. Neuenschwander, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before HASTIE, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
In this action, brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker against his employer for negligent injury suffered while railroading, the district court granted summary judgment on the ground that the pleadings and the plaintiff's own deposition established that the action was barred by the applicable three years statute of limitations.1 On this appeal the plaintiff contends that the record disclosed a need to try a disputed factual issue, whether circumstances, particularly the defendant railroad's own conduct, were such as to estop the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.
The complaint shows on its face that it was filed more than four years after the accident in suit. At the same time, seeking to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff pleaded that . Answering this complaint, the defendant denied the quoted allegations and included a defense of the statute of limitations. It also moved for summary judgment on that issue, filing in support of this motion a lengthy deposition of the plaintiff himself.
In its opinion granting summary judgment, the district court expressed the view that the quoted averment and the answer, considered alone, created "an issue * * * sufficient to take the case to the jury" on the question whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations. In so saying the court recognized the equitable principle that a defendant whose representations or other conduct have caused a plaintiff to delay filing a suit until after the running of the statutory period may be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to the action. Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 1959, 359 U.S. 231, 79 S.Ct. 760, 3 L.Ed.2d 770 (FELA case); Scarborough v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry., 4th Cir. 1949, 178 F.2d 253, 15 A.L.R.2d 491 (FELA case); Bergeron v. Mansour, 1st Cir. 1945, 152 F.2d 27; Howard v. West Jersey & S. S. Ry., 1928, 102 N.J.Eq. 517, 141 A. 755, aff'd. 104 N.J.Eq. 201, 144 A. 919.
However, the court thought that admissions by the plaintiff in a deposition taken by the defendant and filed in support of the motion for summary judgment conclusively refuted the plaintiff's contention that his failure to sue within the statutory period was caused by his reliance upon conduct of the defendant. We have examined the deposition. In it, the plaintiff undertook to show how the defendant had prevented him from suing. He identified R. G. Silvis sic as the claim agent for the defendant who had repeatedly urged him not to sue the railroad and had assured him that the company would make a settlement that would be better than what he could obtain by suing. He added that Silvis had also told him that he would lose his job if he should file a suit against the company. It also appears that the plaintiff has a ninth grade education and no special training, and that he has a dependent wife and four minor children. In these respects the deposition supports and amplifies the allegations of the complaint.
On the other hand, the deposition also admits that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist.
...of a claim. (See, e.g., DeRose v. Carswell, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1026, 242 Cal.Rptr. 368; Longo v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Co., N.Y.C. Sys. (3d Cir.1966) 355 F.2d 443, 444.) And here, the teacher's threats to retaliate against John if the boy reported the incidents of sexua......
-
Windsor v. Bethesda General Hosp.
...say that Windsor had abandoned the well-pleaded allegations of racial discrimination in his complaint. See Longo v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 355 F.2d 443, 444-45 (3d Cir. 1966); Zirin Laboratories International, Inc. v. Mead-Johnson & Co., 208 F.Supp. 633, 634-35 (E.D.Mich.1962). Since gen......
-
Sanchez v. Loffland Bros. Co.
...F.2d 1366 (10th Cir. 1971); United States v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of N. Y., 402 F.2d 893 (4th Cir. 1968); Longo v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Co., 355 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1966); United States v. Continental Cas. Co., 357 F.Supp. 795 (E.D.La.1973).10 Burke v. Gateway Clipper, Inc., 441......
-
United States v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York
...would be incurred, though he did not request it as an exchange for his promise." (emphasis added.) 7 See, Longo v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., 355 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1966); Delson v. Minoque, 190 F.Supp. 935 (E. D.N.Y.1961); Skipper v. Marlowe Mfg. Co., 242 S.C. 486, 131 S.E.2d 524 (19......
-
Holocaust-related claims and limitations: familiar issues in a new context.
...v. Hardy, 299 F.2d 600 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 912 (1962). (29.) See, e.g., Longo v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co, 355 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1966); Mills v. Mills, 258 P.2d 1028 (Cal.App. 1956); Fontana v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 363 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. (30.) Muhl v. Tibe......