T. G. Stegall Trucking Co. v. Tower Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 50651,No. 3,50651,3 |
| Parties | T. G. STEGALL TRUCKING COMPANY v. TOWER LINES, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Whelchel, Dunlap & Gignilliat, James A. Dunlap, Charles O. Gignilliat, Gainesville, for appellant.
Robinson, Harben & Armstrong, Emory F. Robinson, Troy R. Millikan, Gainesville, for appellee.
Both parties here are common carriers. Tower Lines, Inc., had a consignment of products of H. J. Heinz Company to deliver from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Hapeville, Georgia. Tower leased a tractor-trailer and driver from T. G. Stegall Trucking Company, including all necessary permits of that carrier. The vehicle overturned, and damaged and destroyed the consignment, which was valued at $8,191.11. Heinz made claim against Stegall, owner of the tractor-trailer, and Stegall promptly denied liability and refused to pay. Tower, who had rented the tractor-trailer and driver from Stegall, then made settlement with Heinz for the amount of $8,191.11. Tower then sued Stegall, alleging that all claims, rights, causes of action and rights of recovery inhering in Heinz had been transferred and assigned to it for value received.
Plaintiff Tower contends that defendant Stegall agreed to indemnify Tower as to any loss, damage or happening giving rise to claims on the part of the shipper (Heinz). The indemnification clause in their contract is as follows: 'The Lessor shall indemnify the Lessee from any loss, damage or happening giving rise to claims on the part of the shippers (Heinz) . . .' Defendant Stegall answered, its main defense being that the indemnity clause was unenforceable, void, not binding and of no effect as to it because same was subject to the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission as adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 304 and the additional clause in the contract that the carrier-lessee assumes full responsibility in respect to the equipment it is operating to the public, the shippers and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
To simplify, defendant contended it was not bound by its written agreement to indemnify, because the agreement was in contravention of the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that such rules supersede and govern as to the rights and liabilities between these two common-carriers, plaintiff and defendant.
Defendant moved for summary judgment which was denied, and it appeals. Held:
1. The sole question for decision here in whether or not under the Interstate Commerce Commission's regulations, as authorized by 49 U.S.C.A. § 304, any indemnification agreement between the parties would control or be invalid. See 49 CFR 1057.4(a)(4) and 49 CFR 1043.1 and 1043.2 (Code of Federal Regulations).
2. The Interstate Commerce Commission by regulation has required that whenever there is a trip-lease agreement between common carriers that said contract be in writing and the lessee (Tower-plaintiff) assume full responsibility in respect to the equipment it is operating to the public, the shippers (Heinz) and Interstate Commerce Commission. Here, Tower assumed control and responsibility for Stegall's equipment even though the services of Stegall's driver were a part of the agreement. The parties also agreed that Stegall would carry acceptable liability and property damage insurance and would reimburse and otherwise indemnify Tower for any and all losses sustained by it resulting from the use of the aforesaid equipment.
3. In the case of Alford v. Major, 470 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. 1972), upon which defendant-Stegall relies, the 7th Circuit there held that the agreement violated 49 CFR 1057.4(a)(4). The rule adopted by the commission is to protect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmer v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
...with respect to same. See Dove v. Nat. Freight, Inc., 138 Ga.App. 114, 116(4), 225 S.E.2d 477; T. G. Stegall Trucking Co. v. Tower Lines, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 286, 287(2), 217 S.E.2d 488. Compare Mitchell v. Burden Bro., Inc., 126 Ga.App. 75, 189 S.E.2d 909; Farmers Mut. Exchange of Commerce, ......
- Clare v. State
-
Macon-Bibb County Hosp. Authority v. National Treasury Employees Union
...but their reasoning is persuasive. Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351, 361, 314 S.E.2d 621 (1984). But see T.G. Stegall Trucking Co. v. Tower Lines, 135 Ga.App. 286(5), 217 S.E.2d 488 (1975) (where the Court of Appeals held that a federal appellate decision was "controlling authority" in a case i......
-
Rodgers v. First Union Nat. Bank of Georgia
...except the United States Supreme Court, and we do not find the reasoning in Silverman persuasive. T.G. Stegall Trucking Co. v. Tower Lines, 135 Ga.App. 286, 288(5), 217 S.E.2d 488 (1975). Thus, the trial court correctly determined that as matter of law the guaranty was not B. Rodgers conten......