Watterson v. New York Central Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 14 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12552.,12552. |
| Citation | 235 F.2d 114 |
| Parties | Robert F. WATTERSON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ivan E. Barris, Detroit, Mich. (Paul J. Louisell, Duluth, Minn., Joseph W. Louisell, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
George H. Wyatt, Detroit, Mich. (William A. Alfs, M. L. Cullen, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before, ALLEN, MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, employee of a consignee of an interstate shipment, was injured while assisting a fellow employee to unload refrigerators from a boxcar in which they had been transported under seal from Erie, Pennsylvania, to Duluth, Minnesota.
The empty boxcar, owned by Wabash Railroad Company, was transported by appellee New York Central Railroad Company (hereinafter called New York Central), from Norwood, New York, to Erie, Pennsylvania, and there delivered by New York Central to East Erie Commercial Railway Company (hereinafter called East Erie). Certain deep-freeze units and refrigerators were received by East Erie from General Electric Company, whose plant is adjacent to the premises of East Erie, and loaded by East Erie in the empty boxcar in which the goods were braced securely by two by sixes nailed to the floor of the car with boards nailed across them. The boxcar was moved from Erie, Pennsylvania, to Duluth, Minnesota, by New York Central, Indiana Harbor Belt, Chicago Great Western, and Northern Pacific. It was unloaded at Duluth by the consignee, appellant being severely injured in the process.
The District Court found as a fact that East Erie is a common carrier and that in this transaction it was the initial carrier. These findings are correct. East Erie files tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission and is certified as a common carrier by the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission. While 99 per cent of its transactions are with General Electric Company, it serves several other industries. East Erie received the property for interstate carriage, loaded it on the boxcar, and delivered it to another carrier for further carriage. Hence East Erie was the initial carrier. 13 C.J.S., Carriers, § 402, p. 883; Watkins on Shippers and Carriers, 4th Edition, 865; Barrett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 29 Idaho 139, 157 P. 1016; 21 Words and Phrases, Initial Carrier, p. 387; Lino v. Northwestern Pacific R. Co., 332 Ill. 93, 163 N.E. 316; Rice v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, 33 Idaho 565, 198 P. 161.
The court also found that New York Central was a connecting or intermediate carrier. This finding is not shown to be erroneous. 13 C.J.S., Carriers, § 400, p. 882. No evidence was presented as to which carrier issued the bill of lading. The car was furnished to New York Central by the Rutland Railroad Company. As an intermediate carrier New York Central was under no obligation to inspect the car for the benefit of the consignee or its employees and owed no duty with respect to making the condition of the car safe for unloading. 75 C.J.S., Railroads, § 924, p. 337. Doering v. St. Louis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.
...regarded as the contracting carrier. Golden Grain Milling Co. v. St. Louis, S. & P. R., 226 Ill.App. 116; Watterson v. New York Central Railroad Company, 6 Cir., 235 F.2d 114, 115. This is so in many cases even though that carrier performs little more than switching services. See Barrett v.......
-
Veale v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
...the subject in Missouri and elsewhere. See Yandell v. National Fireproofing Corp., 239 N.C. 1, 79 S.E.2d 223; Watterson v. New York Central Railroad Co., (6 Cir.), 235 F.2d 114; Huck v. Chicago, St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co., 16 Wis.2d 466, 114 N.W.2d The facts alleged show that plaintiff did not ......
-
Riss & Company v. United States, Civ. No. 13379-4.
...belonging to a connecting or other carrier does not make the owner of the equipment the initial carrier. Watterson v. New York Central Railroad Co., 6 Cir., 235 F.2d 114; Lino v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co. (1928), 332 Ill. 93, 163 N.E. 316. Therefore, the fact that a trailer belonging to Riss......
-
American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Keleket X-Ray Corp.
...to great weight and may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Watterson v. New York Central R. R. Co., 6 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 114. There is testimony that the rapid expansion of the compressed gases occupying the interstices of this finely div......