Panama R. Co. v. Strobel
| Decision Date | 06 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3752. |
| Citation | 282 F. 52 |
| Parties | PANAMA R. CO. v. STROBEL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Walter F. Van Dame, of Ancon, C.Z., for plaintiff in error.
Chauncey P. Fairman, of Cristobal, C.Z., for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
The defendant in error, Strobel, brought suit in the District Court of the Canal Zone against the Panama Railroad Company to recover for injuries received from the derailment of a train upon which he was traveling as a guard, under orders of his superior officers. He was not an employee of the railroad company, but of the United States, and was guarding a coach entirely occupied by convicts, who were being transported on said railroad. The wrecked train was made up of an engine two refrigerator cars, five second-class passenger coaches, a baggage car, four first-class passenger coaches, a hospital car, and an observation car, in the order named. Strobel was in the passenger coach, immediately behind the refrigerator cars.
The derailment of the cars occurred on a downgrade just beyond a slight curve; the second refrigerator car, the second-class passenger cars, and the north truck of the baggage car leaving the rails, and the engine and remaining cars not being derailed. The second refrigerator car and two second-class passenger coaches were demolished. Strobel recovered a verdict of $8,500. The court refused a new trial and the railroad company has taken this writ of error.
The point to be considered is the action of the court in overruling the railroad company's demurrer to the complaint, and in refusing to direct a verdict for the railroad company on the ground that Strobel's only remedy was to apply for the allowance of compensation under the Compensation Act of Congress of September 7, 1916 (39 Stat 742; U.S. Comp. St. Sec. 8932a et seq.). Strobel was an employee of the United States, and entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Compensation Act. We do not think, however, that this was an exclusive remedy, but that he had the alternative either to apply for compensation under this act, assigning to the United States his cause of action against the railroad company, or to refrain from making application for compensation and bring suit against the railroad company, as he did. The decision rendered by this court at this term in Panama Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minnix, Defendant in Error 282 F. 47, fully sets forth our opinion on this subject, and no further discussion of it is necessary.
It is insisted that the facts did not make out a case of negligence, and that plaintiff was for this reason not entitled to recover. In this case the person injured was in no manner concerned in the operation of the train; he was not in the employ of the railroad company, but being transported thereon, engaged as a public officer of the Canal Zone in policing the train and preventing disorder. The train without any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. United States
...was a coastguardsman, not entitled to compensation under the Act. 4 Panama R. Co. v. Minnix, 5 Cir., 1922, 282 F. 47; Panama R. Co. v. Strobel, 5 Cir., 1922, 282 F. 52. The Panama Railroad was (until 1948) a New York corporation wholly owned by the United States since 1905. Although a suit ......
-
Manhattan Oil Co. v. Mosby
...Co. v. Edmisson, 208 U. S. 534, 540, 28 S. Ct. 367, 52 L. Ed. 606; Lane v. Leiter (C. C. A. 7) 237 F. 149, 158; Panama R. Co. v. Strobel (C. C. A. 5) 282 F. 52, 53. But a complete answer to the question will be found in the case of Goldstein v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 63 F.(2d) 609, 612,......
-
National Housing Agency v. Orton
...under the style of Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696; Payne v. Cohlmeyer, 7 Cir., 275 F. 803; Panama Railroad Co. v. Strobel, 4 Cir., 282 F. 52, following Panama R. R. Co. v. Minnix, 4 Cir., 282 F. 47. According to these decisions, the United States Employees' Compensa......
-
Marine v. United States
...persons injured by the operation for the Government of merchant vessels." In Panama R. v. Minnix, 5 Cir., 282 F. 47 and Panama R. v. Strobel, 5 Cir., 282 F. 52 it was held that a Government employee might sue the Panama Railroad Company, wholly owned by the United States, should be so elect......