North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 1,483.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Citation172 F. 214
Decision Date13 April 1909
PartiesNORTH AMERICAN RY. CONST. CO. v. CINCINNATI TRACTION CO.
Docket Number1,483.

172 F. 214

NORTH AMERICAN RY. CONST. CO.
v.
CINCINNATI TRACTION CO.

No. 1,483.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 13, 1909


[172 F. 215]

'The said contractor will be required to take at his own expense all precautions against accidents such as maintaining lights, barricades, etc., as are required by laws and building regulations of Cincinnati or the orders of the said engineer which may be issued from time to time or by reasonable prudence and shall be responsible for all damages resulting from omission in this regard.'

'The said contractor further agrees to protect, indemnify and save harmless the said company from all suits and actions which may be brought against the said company and from and against all claims of any kind for damages done or caused in the course of construction of the work provided for by this contract, or in consequence thereof, in any manner, including all damages and injury to persons, to land or buildings, all injuries to animals or vehicles or to any property whatever.'

'Street Traffic, Guards and Lights.

'The said Contractor must provide plank sidewalks or bridges, properly fastened, having railing on each side, and in all respects to conform to all city regulations for keeping the streets open for travel and traffic.

'All construction herein provided for must be carefully guarded by ropes or timber barricades, and must be lighted at night by a sufficient number of red lights.

'All material along the sidewalk or roadway must be guarded and lighted as above provided.' [172 F. 216]

Edgar B. Tolman, for plaintiff in error.

William E. Church, for defendant in error.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above), delivered the opinion.

Contracts of indemnity such as the one here sued upon, are usually intended to provide against loss or liability of one party, through the operations of the other, or caused by physical conditions that are under the control of the other-- over which the party indemnified has no control, and the party indemnifying has control. Indeed, it would take clear language to show that a contract of indemnity was intended to cover conditions or operations under the control of the party indemnified, and not under the control of the indemnifying party, such, for instance, as accidents, the proximate cause of which is the negligence of the party indemnified.

The provision of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Fire Association of Phila. v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 775.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 14, 1955
    ...acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms. North American Ry. Construction Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7 Cir., 172 F. 214, 215; Washington & Berkeley Bridge Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 4 Cir., 215 F. 32; Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 1......
  • Parks v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 61468
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1980
    ...cause of which is the negligence of the party indemnified.' " (quoting North American Ry. Construction Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 172 F. 214, 216 (7th Cir. 1909)). "(I)n the absence of such clear expression or where any doubt exists as to the intention of the parties," courts in Missou......
  • Wallace v. United States, No. 10036.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • October 1, 1926
    ...who has sole control of his own actions and of his agents or employees. North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co. (C. C. A.) 172 F. 214. See Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1173, 10 Ann. Cas. 589. And the amount of the contract ($20,404) should be ......
  • Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy, Civ. A. No. 70-H-1171.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 7, 1972
    ...no control and which are under the control of the subcontractor. See North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7th Cir., 172 F. 214." Joe Adams & Son v. McCann Constr. Co., Tex., 475 S.W.2d 721, 724 In that case a general contractor's written indemnity contract with the subc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Fire Association of Phila. v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 775.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 14, 1955
    ...acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms. North American Ry. Construction Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7 Cir., 172 F. 214, 215; Washington & Berkeley Bridge Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 4 Cir., 215 F. 32; Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 1......
  • Parks v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 61468
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1980
    ...cause of which is the negligence of the party indemnified.' " (quoting North American Ry. Construction Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 172 F. 214, 216 (7th Cir. 1909)). "(I)n the absence of such clear expression or where any doubt exists as to the intention of the parties," courts in Missou......
  • Wallace v. United States, No. 10036.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • October 1, 1926
    ...who has sole control of his own actions and of his agents or employees. North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co. (C. C. A.) 172 F. 214. See Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1173, 10 Ann. Cas. 589. And the amount of the contract ($20,404) should be ......
  • Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy, Civ. A. No. 70-H-1171.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 7, 1972
    ...no control and which are under the control of the subcontractor. See North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7th Cir., 172 F. 214." Joe Adams & Son v. McCann Constr. Co., Tex., 475 S.W.2d 721, 724 In that case a general contractor's written indemnity contract with the subc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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