North American Ry. Const. Co. v. Cincinnati Traction Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | 1,483. |
| Citation | 172 F. 214 |
| Parties | NORTH AMERICAN RY. CONST. CO. v. CINCINNATI TRACTION CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
'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.'
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
-
Wallace v. United States, 10036.
...of negligence of the indemnitee, 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 ......
-
Parks v. Union Carbide Corp.
...accidents, the proximate 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 p......
-
Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. Ralston-Purina Co.
... ... & P.R ... Co. v. Grant Bros. Const. Co., 228 U.S. 177, 33 S.Ct ... 474, 57 L.Ed. 787. (2) ... v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 24 F.2d ... 347; North American Ry. Constr. Co. v. Cincinnati ... Traction Co., ... ...
-
Central Sur. & Ins. Corp. v. Hinton
... ... Cantley v. American Surety Co. of New York, 225 ... Mo.App. 1146, 38 S.W.2d ... Telegraph Company case also commented upon Heman Const ... Co. v. City of St. Louis, 256 Mo. 332, 165 S.W ... examined the case of North Am. Ry. Const. Co. v. Cinn ... Traction Co., 172 F. 214, ... ...