Wright v. BF HUNTLEY FURNITURE COMPANY

• Decision Date: 21 August 1961
• Docket Number: No. C-46-WS-60.,C-46-WS-60.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Warren J. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. B. F. HUNTLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, Defendant.

197 F. Supp. 117

Warren J. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. B. F. HUNTLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. C-46-WS-60.

United States District Court M. D. North Carolina, Winston-Salem Division.

August 21, 1961.

Robert M. Bryant, Winston-Salem, N. C., for plaintiff.

Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton & Stockton, Winston-Salem, N. C., for defendant.

EDWIN M. STANLEY, Chief Judge.

This is an action by the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, against the defendant, a North Carolina corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when struck by a carton of furniture while opening a railroad freight car. The basis for the action is the alleged negligence of the defendant in loading the freight car.

The case was tried by the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties were afforded the privilege of filing requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and briefs in support of their respective positions.

The requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and briefs of the parties having been received, the court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, including exhibits and stipulations filed, and briefs of the parties, now makes and files herein its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, separately stated.

Findings of Fact

1. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2. The defendant is a North Carolina corporation and maintains its principal office and place of business at Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

3. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $10,000.

4. The defendant for many years has been engaged in the manufacture of furniture, and its product is sold to retail furniture dealers located in various parts of the United States.

5. At the time of the accident complained of, the plaintiff was employed by Jordan Marsh Company, of Auburndale, Massachusetts, a retail furniture dealer. Jordan Marsh Company is a regular customer of the defendant, and maintains a warehouse at Auburndale, Massachusetts, which is used for receiving and storing furniture.

6. On April 1, 1958, the defendant shipped a carload of furniture to the Jordan Marsh Company. The boxcar was loaded, closed and sealed by the defendant, after which it was moved from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Auburndale, Massachusetts, by the following common carriers by rail: Norfolk & Western Railroad, initial carrier; Western Maryland Railroad; Reading Railroad; Central of New Jersey Railroad; and New York Central Railroad, intermediate carriers; and Boston & Albany Railroad, delivering carrier. The boxcar of furniture was placed on the Jordan Marsh Company's railway siding on the morning of April 10, 1958.

7. On April 10, 1958, and for some 15 years prior thereto, the plaintiff's duties as an employee of Jordan Marsh Company were those of a warehouse receiver of merchandise. A part of such duties consisted of opening railway boxcars containing merchandise shipped to the Jordan Marsh Company, and checking the merchandise while it was being unloaded by other employees. The plaintiff knew from his experience of the manner in which railway boxcars were usually loaded with furniture, and was aware of the general practice of shippers to load heavier and larger pieces of merchandise on the bottom of the load and smaller pieces on top. He also knew from his experience that the smaller pieces on top of the load would usually shift in transit if not securely braced, and that such was a common occurrence.

8. On the morning of April 10, 1958, at about 8 o'clock, the plaintiff, in the course of his duties as receiver of merchandise for his employer, was assigned to open and check a shipment of furniture contained in a railway boxcar which was then located on a siding at the warehouse of the Jordan Marsh Company. This was the car of furniture that had been shipped by the defendant to the Jordan Marsh Company on April 1, 1958. The floor of the warehouse platform was on practically the same level as the floor of the boxcar. In the performance of this assignment, the plaintiff first broke the seal and then opened the boxcar door on the side next to the platform, and looked inside the car. He saw that it was loaded with furniture, and that the load extended all the way to the top of the car. The car door was shored, either with planks or metal straps, about three-fourths of the way from the bottom to the top.

9. After opening the door on the warehouse side, the plaintiff went to the opposite side of the boxcar for the purpose of opening the other door. Since there was no platform on this side, plaintiff had to stand on the ground, which was about five feet below the floor of the boxcar, while breaking the seal and opening the door. After the door was opened some ten or twelve inches, it became stuck because of rust on the door runners. The plaintiff then looked through the opening and could see that the load also extended all the way from the floor to the top on this side of the car. He further observed that the shipment was from the defendant and was intended for his employer. The plaintiff then proceeded to use a crowbar to loosen the door, after which he used his hands to open the door the balance of the way. The moment the plaintiff completed the opening, he was struck on the head by a pasteboard carton containing a night table which had fallen from the top of the load. The carton weighed from fifty to sixty pounds, and plaintiff was knocked unconscious by the blow.

10. After using the crowbar to loosen the door, and while opening the door the balance of the way with his hands, the plaintiff never at any time looked up to determine if there were loose cartons in the car that would fall, or would be likely to fall, when the door was opened. He never saw the carton that struck him until he regained consciousness a short time after the accident. The plaintiff stated that he did not look up for the reason that he was in a stooped, awkward position, and was in no position to look up when he was pushing a heavy door. After regaining consciousness, plaintiff stated that he saw several other cartons on top of the load near the door "ready to fall."

11. There was no obstruction to prevent plaintiff from seeing the carton that struck him. If he had looked before the accident, he could have seen the loose cartons, including the carton that struck him, and could have thereby avoided the accident.

12. The defendant had no control over the car of furniture from the time it left its warehouse on April 1, 1958, until it was delivered to the railroad siding of the plaintiff's employer on April 10, 1958, and there is no evidence as to what happened to the shipment from the time it left Winston-Salem until it arrived at the railway siding at Auburndale, Massachusetts.

13. The plaintiff gave conflicting evidence as to his reason for opening the door opposite the warehouse. On one occasion he stated the purpose for opening the door was to enable him to read the labels on the cartons and make sure that they were intended for his employer, and on another occasion he stated the purpose was to provide a means for trucks bringing other merchandise to his employer to unload through the boxcar in the event all the warehouse unloading areas were in use. It is found that the latter explanation is the more plausible one.

14. At the time his deposition was taken, the plaintiff stated that when he first opened the door on the warehouse side he could see that the load had shifted, and that the smaller pieces were on top. He also stated he knew the shifting of loads while in transit to be a common occurrence. At the trial he testified differently, and stated that he did not believe he should have testified as he did when his deposition was taken.

15. The plaintiff was alone at the time of his injury and no one else saw how the accident happened.

16. The evidence was conflicting as to the shoring material used on the boxcar. The plaintiff testified that wooden planks were used for shoring in front of both doors, and that this same shoring material had been used in shipments received by his employer from the defendant since 1947. The production manager of the defendant stated that Signode steel straps had been exclusively used for shoring since 1947, and that to his knowledge no other material had been used. So far as the evidence discloses, both materials, if properly used, would serve the same purpose, and there was no evidence indicating that the type of material used and the methods employed by the defendant to shore the boxcar had any relationship to the accident.

17. The Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau, an agency of the various railroads, has as one of its primary functions the policing and checking of packaging and loading methods employed by railroad shippers. At various times during a period of several years preceding the accident, and continuing to the present time, this agency, in accordance with its usual procedures, had caused its inspectors to make unannounced calls from time to time on the defendant for the purpose of checking the methods and procedures employed in packaging freight and loading boxcars. On each occasion the defendant had been found to be complying with the approved rules and regulations of the railroads. The uncontradicted evidence discloses that the safety precautions used by the defendant in packaging and loading freight are equal or superior to the safety precautions employed by the various other shippers of furniture in this area, and that the methods and procedures employed by the defendant are generally accepted and approved in the furniture trade.

18. There was introduced in evidence a pamphlet containing rules regulating the safe loading of freight in cars, as prepared and published by the Association of American Railroads, indicating that incomplete layers in shipments...