Ochsrider v. Reading Company, Civ. A. No. 21956.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 21956. |
| Citation | 172 F. Supp. 830 |
| Parties | Elery A. OCHSRIDER, Jr., v. READING COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Milford J. Meyer, Joseph Smukler, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Richard P. Brown, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.
This is an action by an employe under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. to recover damages for personal injuries resulting, it is alleged, from an unprovoked assault by a fellow employe.
The parties, by their respective counsel, orally stipulated that the action be tried to the court without a jury, and orally waived all requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure respecting specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, except that the court should make specific findings on the questions: (1) whether or not the assault was committed by the employe in the scope of his employment and with the purpose of furthering the employer's business; and (2) the amount of the damages sustained by plaintiff as a result of the assault, whether or not liability should be found to exist. Engagement in interstate commerce was expressly admitted.
The basic and underlying facts are not in dispute, and appear from the testimony of the plaintiff, who was the sole witness in the case.
On October 3, 1956, plaintiff was employed as a welder in defendant's car shop in Reading, and was engaged with other workmen in assembling sides for hopper cars. The operation progressed through successive stages, in what was described as an "assembly line arrangement." The work of assembling began at the No. 1 jig, continued at No. 2 jig and was finally completed at No. 3 jig. Plaintiff and another worker were stationed at No. 2 jig. One Randazzo with two other workers constituted the crew at No. 3 jig. Among his fellow workers Randazzo had a reputation for fault-finding and was known as a quick-tempered, chronic complainer. He complained if the work moved along too quickly, and he complained if it came to him too slowly so that he was required to wait on occasions. Plaintiff makes no claim, however, that the defendant knew, or should have known, that Randazzo was a violent person, or a person of vicious tendencies and disposition.
Shortly before noon on the day in question, when the work was proceeding at a satisfactory pace, Randazzo suddenly left his jig and ran toward plaintiff complaining that plaintiff's crew was "going too slow for him." Plaintiff put his hands on Randazzo's shoulder and attempted to placate him. Asked what then happened, plaintiff testified: "Well, he stooped down while I had my hands on his shoulder like that, he stooped down and took his glasses off and laid them on the trash can right near there and, well, he came upright and started in swinging, clubbed me all over the face and teeth and jaw, I don't know how many times he hit me, and my glasses fell to the floor."
Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the encounter. An X-ray examination indicated the necessity for an immediate operation. Plaintiff was operated on, and remained in the hospital for a period of eleven days. He was unable to return to work until the following November 12th. The hospital report "shows the final diagnosis of fracture of the floor orbit on the left; fracture of the zygoma on the left depressed; fracture of the malar bone on the left, and fracture of the maxillary bone on the left."
The Federal Employers' Liability Act provides that a railroad engaged in interstate commerce "shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce * * * for such injury * * * resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier * * *" 45 U.S.C.A. § 51. As the statute has been construed, "negligence" may embrace an assault and battery, and the employer must respond if it was committed by an employe in the scope of his employment with the purpose of furthering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, 6599.
...Co., 108 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 280 F.2d 629; Sheaf v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 162 F.2d 110; Ochsrider v. Reading Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 172 F.Supp. 830; Tatham v. Wabash R. R. Co., 412 Ill. 568, 107 N.E.2d 735, 33 A.L.R.2d 1287, annotation 1295; Lanners v. Atchison, T. & S. ......
-
Jordan v. Medley, 82-1577
...motivation was purely personal.' " Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Reddick, supra, 398 A.2d at 31, quoting from Ochsrider v. Reading Co., 172 F.Supp. 830, 832 (E.D.Pa.1959). The trial court therefore erred in taking the scope of employment issue away from the jury. Because that issue was......
-
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Reddick
...of an employe's [sic] act may well be persuasive in considering whether his motivation was purely personal." Ochsrider v. Reading Co., 172 F.Supp. 830, 832 (E.D.Pa.1959), citing Restatement (First) of Agency § 235, Comment c Whether an assault "which was the proximate cause of the injury wa......
-
Lovings v. Seaboard Coastline R. Co.
...of a fellow employee was in furtherance of the employer's business, which was not done in the case sub judice. See: Ochsrider v. Reading Co., 172 F.Supp. 830 (E.D.Pa.1959); Euresti v. Washington Terminal Company, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 280 F.2d 629 (1960); Davis v. Green, 260 U.S. 349, 43 S.C......
-
Thomas R. Lee, Glenn L. Christensen & Eric D. Derosia, Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer
...210 E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Consorzio del Gallo Nero, 782 F. Supp. 457, 465 (N.D. Cal. 1991). 211 Id. 212 See Ben R. Goltsman & Co., 172 F. Supp. at 830 n.3. 214 Id. 215 See supra note 186 and accompanying text (discussing Telebrands Corp. v. E. Mishan & Sons, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1493, 1508 (S.D.......