New York Central Railroad Co. v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 34518. |
| Parties | NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John F. Dolan and Joseph T. Ryan, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Burns Weston of Johnson, Weston, Blackmore, Cory & Hurd, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
The plaintiff in its original complaint filed May 29, 1958, in addition to the usual allegations as to corporate capacity and jurisdiction, alleges that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a sidetrack agreement on May 12, 1954; a copy of the agreement was attached, marked Exhibit A. This agreement pertained to sidetracks constructed for the servicing of the General Motors Corporation's plant, hereinafter referred to as the Clinton Road Plant or the Cleveland Diesel Engine Division, one of said sidetracks being identified as A' B'. The plaintiff further alleges that on May 6, 1955, while said agreement was in full force and effect, an employee of the defendant, Martin J. Sendry, was injured during a switching operation being conducted by a train crew employed by the plaintiff upon tracks A' B'. Sendry's injuries are alleged to have resulted from his being pinned between a railroad car and a locomotive underframe which had been placed upon and across the sidetrack by employees of the defendant. It is alleged that thereafter Martin J. Sendry commenced an action against the plaintiff in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Case No. 680939, praying for judgment against this plaintiff in the amount of $250,000 for injuries allegedly proximately resulting from the movement of the railroad car.
The original complaint demands, under the terms of the sidetrack agreement, that the Court declare and determine the right of the plaintiff to have the General Motors Corporation assume and indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all liabilities, losses and expenses resulting from damages to Martin J. Sendry. The original complaint further demands that the Court declare and determine each and every, all and singular, the liabilities and duties owing to the plaintiff from the defendant, arising out of or connected with the occurrence of May 6, 1955, in which Martin J. Sendry was injured.
The Martin J. Sendry case against the plaintiff, No. 680939, was assigned and came on for trial in the Common Pleas Court on September 25, 1959, which was before the original complaint in the instant case had been submitted and decided. It is conceded by the plaintiff and the defendant that defendant's Exhibit V, a letter dated April 2, 1957, was the first notice by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting the defendant to assume complete responsibility for the Martin J. Sendry accident. The defendant declined and refused the plaintiff's request to accept the responsibility in the Martin Sendry case or to agree to reimburse the Railroad Company for the expense of defense of the Sendry action or any judgment which might be rendered therein. It appears that the next notice of the plaintiff's demands was the institution of this case by the filing of the complaint on May 29, 1958.
On December 14, 1959, the plaintiff filed its supplemental complaint alleging that the case of Martin J. Sendry v. New York Central Railroad Company, No. 680939, came on for trial, that the plaintiff paid to Martin J. Sendry the sum of $48,750 as a consideration for a settlement and compromise, and that the plaintiff expended $1,767.13 in the course of the preparation of its defense of the suit by Martin J. Sendry, including court costs; and in its supplemental complaint plaintiff demands that this Court declare and determine each and every, all and singular, the liabilities and duties owing the plaintiff from the defendant, arising out of or connected with the occurrence of May 6, 1955, in which Martin J. Sendry was injured. The plaintiff prays that it may recover $50,517.13 plus a reasonable amount for services of attorneys in connection with Case No. 680939 in the Court of Common Pleas.
Thereafter, a number of requests for admissions and interrogatories were filed and answered by each of the parties. From the admissions, the answers to the interrogatories and the evidence, the Court finds the following facts:
That The New York Central Railroad Company is a railroad organized under the laws of and is a citizen of the State of Ohio.
That the General Motors Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of and is a citizen of the State of Delaware.
That the matter in controversy in the instant case exceeds, exclusive of interests and costs, the sum of $3,000.
That the General Motors Corporation executed an agreement with The New York Central Railroad Company on or about May 12, 1954, called "Private Sidetrack Agreement."
That on May 24, 1954, the said agreement of May 12, 1954, was modified by The New York Central Railroad Company and General Motors Corporation.
That Exhibit A appended to the complaint of The New York Central Railroad Company is a correct copy of the "Private Sidetrack Agreement" entered into by and between The New York Central Railroad Company and General Motors Corporation on May 12, 1954.
That Exhibit B appended to plaintiff's complaint is a true and correct copy of the "Private Sidetrack Agreement" entered into by and between The New York Central Railroad Company and the General Motors Corporation on or about May 24, 1954.
That said "Private Sidetrack Agreement" entered into between The New York Central Railroad Company and General Motors Corporation on or about May 12, 1954, and as modified on or about May 24, 1954, was in full force and effect on May 6, 1955.
That Exhibit B attached to plaintiff's complaint is a true and correct copy of a map attached to the said "Private Sidetrack Agreement" entered into by and between The New York Central Railroad Company and the General Motors Corporation on or about May 12, 1954, and modified on or about May 24, 1954.
That said map marked Exhibit B attached to plaintiff's complaint shows the layout and location of tracks in the vicinity of the General Motors plant and facilities in the vicinity of Clinton Road and The New York Central right of way in the Village of Brooklyn, County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio.
That the track marked in solid yellow and dashed yellow on Exhibit B attached to plaintiff's complaint is owned and maintained by the General Motors Corporation.
That Martin J. Sendry, on May 6, 1955, was pinned between the coupler of a railroad car and an underframe which rested on the track marked A' B' on Exhibit B attached to plaintiff's complaint.
That for approximately six years prior to the execution of the agreement of May 12, 1954, the General Motors Corporation, by its Electromotive Division and its Cleveland Diesel Division, used the premises at the Clinton Road Plant for the production of diesel locomotives and appurtenances including diesel engines.
That during such period Track A' B' was used primarily for the assembly of diesel locomotives which were moved westerly along said track.
That the assembly of diesel locomotives was shut down by the General Motors Corporation in 1954.
That the General Motors Corporation continued the manufacture of diesel locomotive underframes at the Clinton Road plant until some time in 1956.
That such locomotive underframes were manufactured in the easterly portion of Bay 12 in which Track A' B' is located.
That during part of 1954, 1955 and 1956, sub-assembly of underframe parts was carried on in Bay 12 in the most easterly portion thereof, and that Track A' B' was located in the easterly portion of said bay and extended 458 feet to the westerly end of the building.
That just west of the sub-assembly area, final assembly of underframes was made upon Track A' B' and on both sides thereof in Bay 12.
That just west of the final assembly area, painting of the underframes was done upon Track A' B' and on both sides thereof in Bay 12.
That just to the west of the painting area, completed underframes were stored on Track A' B' and on both sides thereof in Bay 12 prior to their being loaded aboard the railroad's gondola cars for shipment out of the city.
That just to the west of the storage area, completed underframes were loaded aboard the railroad's gondola cars which were spotted on Track A' B'.
That such manufacturing activities as were conducted in Bay 12, underframe assembly and shipment, transpired from sometime in 1954 to 1956.
That certain train crew members, employees of The New York Central Railroad, entered the General Motors premises at Clinton Road for the purpose of picking up or making delivery of railroad cars, observed activities in and about Bay 12 which appeared to be the manufacture and shipment of locomotive underframes.
That certain train crew members, employees of The New York Central Railroad, observed the manufacture of diesel locomotives in Bay 12 while such operations were conducted while switching the finished locomotives which were delivered to The New York Central Railroad for shipment.
That prior to the accident on May 6, 1955, in which Martin J. Sendry was injured, The New York Central Railroad gave no written notice to General Motors Corporation that the use of the easterly portion of Bay 12, including the easterly portion of Track A' B', constituted the creation or maintenance of an obstruction, within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of the sidetrack agreement of May 12, 1954.
That prior to the accident of Martin J. Sendry on May 6, 1955, no written complaint or objection was made by The New York Central to the use that the General Motors Corporation made of Bay 12 at the Clinton Road plant, its private property.
That prior to the accident of Martin J. Sendry on May 6, 1955, The New York Central Railroad gave no oral notice to General Motors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Blume
...primary resort should be to the language employed by the parties in the written instrument. New York Central Railroad Co. v. General Motors Corp., 182 F.Supp. 273, 284 (N.D.Ohio, 1960); State ex rel. Maher v. Baker, 88 Ohio St., at 172, 102 N.E. 732, and such language will be given effect i......
-
Ray v. Donohew
...for principal and interest); Larson Const. Co. v. Oregon Auto Ins. Co., 450 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir.1971); New York Cent. R. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 182 F.Supp. 273, 290 (N.D.Ohio 1960); Manget Foundation, Inc. v. White, 101 Ga.App. 239, 113 S.E.2d 235 (Ga.Ct.App.1960); Northwestern Classic......
-
Eliason v. Production Credit Association of Aitkin
...Bank, Mo.App., 102 S.W.2d 751; State ex rel. Richards v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., Mo.App., 82 S.W.2d 123; New York Cent. R. Co. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 182 F.Supp. 273.13 State ex rel. Richards v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., Mo.App., 82 S.W.2d 123; New York Cent. R. Co. v. General Motor......
-
Combined Network, Inc. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S.
...evidence will suffice to prove equitable estoppel or if clear and convincing evidence is required. Compare New York C.R. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 182 F.Supp. 273 (N.D. Ohio 1960); Ricks v. Teslow Consol., 162 Mont. 469, 512 P.2d 1304 (1973); Albuquerque Nat'l Bank v. Albuquerque Ranch E......