Schosboek v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | 26073. |
| Citation | 71 P.2d 548,191 Wash. 425 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHOSBOEK v. CHICAGO, M. ST. P. & P. R. CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; James T. Lawler, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Former opinion modified and judgment below affirmed in part.
For former opinion, see 188 Wash. 672, 63 P.2d 477.
A. N Whitlock, O. G. Edwards, and A. J. Laughon, all of Seattle for appellants.
Wright & Wright and Padden & Moriarty, all of Seattle, for respondent.
On petition for rehearing respondent urges the decision in Schosboek v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company and Hall, 188 Wash. 672, 63 P.2d 477 should be modified for the following reasons: (1) It did not take cognizance of respondent's contention as to the unconstitutionality and invalidity of chapter 28 of the Laws of 1917 (page 76), because of defectiveness in the title and of which Rem.Rev.Stat. § 7693 (Laws 1917, p. 96, c. 28, § 19), is a part. (2) Respondent is entitled to an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court against appellant Hall.
We consider all questions, federal and state, were correctly decided except the second question urged in the petition for rehearing.
It now becomes necessary to inquire as to the right of an employee of a common carrier to sue a third person, a coemployee in the instant case, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (1906) 34 Stat. 232, and as amended (1908) 35 Stat. 65 (1910) 36 Stat. 291 (45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-59). An examination of the Federal Employers' Liability Act discloses that it is silent in regard to actions by an injured employee against third parties. Hence Congress clearly intended to preserve the common-law right of action by an injured employee against third parties by not expressly abrogating the same. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 37 S.Ct. 546, 61 L.Ed. 1045, L.R.A.1918C, 439, Ann.Cas.1917D, 1139.
Lee v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482. See, also, Cott v. Erie R. Co., 231 N.Y. 67, 131 N.E. 737 ().
In view of the fact that the common-law right of action of an employee against a third party was not impaired by the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the three-year statute of limitations is applicable to appellant Hall. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 159.
Respondent was manifestly entitled to join Hall as a party defendant under the facts here. In this state it has never been questioned that master and servant may be sued jointly, but has usually been assumed. Mitchell v. Churches, 119 Wash. 547, 206 P. 6, 36 A.L.R. 1132; Poundstone v. Whitney (Wash.) 65 P.2d 1261.
The doctrine of respondent superior is not decisive of this case and the release of the master does not release the servant. It is conceded that if only the negligence of Hall in negligently watering the bricks were involved and there were no independent negligence on the part of the railroad, that a verdict exonerating the master would also exonerate the servant. Sipes v. Puget Sound Electric Ry. & Dimmock, 54 Wash. 47, 102 P. 1057; Curtis v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 133 Wash. 323, 233 P. 936. That result does not follow in this case inasmuch as the running of the two-year statute of limitations is the only reason the railroad company is not liable.
The judgment herein is accordingly modified so as to affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to Hall, but in all other respects remains as heretofore entered.
Respondent is awarded costs as against appellant Hall.
The right to recovery under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co.
...Co., 231 N.Y. 67, 131 N.E. 737; Lee v. Central Georgia R. Co., 252 U.S. 109, 40 S. Ct. 254, 64 L. Ed. 482; Schosboek v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 191 Wash. 425, 71 Pac. (2d) 548. (3) Since at the time in question, plaintiff, as an employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, was a m......
-
Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co.
... ... 462; ... McNaught v. Hines, Dir. Gen., 300 Ill. 167, 133 N.E ... 53; O'Brien v. Chicago, C.R. Co., 305 Ill. 244, ... 137 N.E. 214. (2) Plaintiff's employer, the Pennsylvania ... 737; Lee v. Central Georgia R. Co., 252 ... U.S. 109, 40 S.Ct. 254, 64 L.Ed. 482; Schosboek v ... Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 191 Wash. 425, 71 P.2d ... 548. (3) Since at the time in ... Kennen, 64 F.2d 605; Camunus v. N.Y. & Pr. S.S ... Co., 260 F. 40. (11) Whether an employee of a carrier ... when injured was employed in ... ...
-
United States v. First Sec. Bank of Utah
...Johns v. Hake, 15 Wash.2d 651, 131 P.2d 933; Wills v. J. J. Newberry Co., 43 Cal. App.2d 595, 111 P.2d 346; Schosboek v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co., 191 Wash. 425, 71 P.2d 548; Normington v. Neely, 58 Idaho 134, 70 P.2d 396; Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce, 51 Wyo. 1, 62 P.2d 1297; Las......
-
Seeberger v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...105 Wash.2d 1018 (1985); Schosboek v. Chicago, M., St. P. & Pac. R.R. Co., 188 Wash. 672, 677, 63 P.2d 477 (1936), modified, 191 Wash. 425, 71 P.2d 548 (1937).4 Ragsdell v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 688 F.2d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir.1982); see also Peyton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 962 ......