Masiglowa v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co.

Decision Date16 September 1955
Docket NumberCiv. No. 30076.
Citation135 F. Supp. 816
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
PartiesNick MASIGLOWA, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Howard M. Metzenbaum, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff, Elmer I. Schwartz, Harold S. Stern, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel.

Donald W. Hornbeck, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant, Edwin Knachel, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge.

Careful consideration has been given to the motion of the defendant railroad carrier to vacate and set aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court thereon and to grant the defendant a new trial.

The arguments and the briefs of the attorneys for both sides and the transcript of the testimony of the plaintiff, and of defendant's eye-witness Dean F. Hackenburg, have been read and analyzed. The authorities cited in the briefs filed by the attorneys for the contending parties have been read and weighed. The conclusion has again been reached, announced at the end of the introduction of the evidence in the case, that the motion of defendant for directed verdict is not well grounded.

Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as a trial court is obliged to do upon a motion for directed verdict, there was substantial evidence upon which the jury could find negligence upon the part of the defendant if it believed the testimony of the plaintiff. This testimony was to the effect that the employer failed to furnish an adequate number of carmen helpers to perform the labor required on the date of the accident, with the result that plaintiff and Hackenburg were unduly hustled by the carmen to supply needed lining for the railroad car, — the plaintiff testifying positively that a carman "hollered" or "yelled" at him "to get the stuff". The result was that at the suggestion of Hackenburg, plaintiff said that he lifted, at his end, three bundles of planks, each bundle containing four pieces each of which weighed 18 to 20 pounds.

The plaintiff testified that Hackenburg first picked up his end from the ground and that the plaintiff then picked up the other end and when he lifted the bundles to his shoulder something "clicked" or "cracked" in his back. He said that with Hackenburg he carried the load to the car, when Hackenburg dropped the load from his shoulder and the plaintiff couldn't hold his end any longer and let the planks drop to the ground. He then felt severe pain and was compelled to quit work because he felt sick.

In overruling a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence the reasons therefor were stated from the Bench and dictated into the record. Several authorities were cited and upon full...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Yawn v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 16, 1979
    ...an object. Southern Ry. v. Welch, 247 F.2d 340 (6th Cir. 1957) (ruptured disc sustained when moving rails); Masiglowa v. New York, C. & St. L. R.R., 135 F.Supp. 816 (N.D.Ohio 1955) (back injury sustained while lifting planks); Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Sparks, 424 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Civ.App.1967) (......
  • Glass v. BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RR CO.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 22, 2004
    ...& Ohio Ry., 497 F.2d 1243 (7th Cir.1974); Southern Ry. v. Welch, 247 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1957); and Masiglowa v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.R., 135 F.Supp. 816 (N.D.Ohio 1955). However, only Heater actually involves a duty to provide sufficient equipment. 497 F.2d at 1247. Both Welch, 24......
  • Olinski v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • October 19, 1956
    ...his duty. The law imposes no liability under such circumstances." Nor is this reasoning overcome by that in Masiglowa v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., D.C., 135 F.Supp. 816 or Stone v. New York Central & St. Louis R. Co., 344 U.S. 407, 73 S.Ct. 358, 97 L. Ed. 441, since that line of......
  • THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. MASIGLOWA
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 9, 1956
    ...upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion and order of the District Court on motion of defendant for new trial. 135 F.Supp. 816. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT