Zimmerman v. Montour Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 09 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 13595.,13595.
• Citation: 296 F.2d 97
• Parties: Louis E. ZIMMERMAN v. MONTOUR RAILROAD COMPANY, Inc., Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

296 F.2d 97 (1961)

Louis E. ZIMMERMAN v. MONTOUR RAILROAD COMPANY, Inc., Appellant.

No. 13595.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued October 6, 1961.

Decided November 9, 1961.

Rehearing Denied December 4, 1961.

Harold R. Schmidt, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John Evans Rose, Jr., Rose, Houston, Cooper & Schmidt, on the brief), for appellant.

Dennis C. Harrington, Pittsburgh, Pa. (McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., Gene K. Lynch, on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

STALEY, Circuit Judge.

In an action tried to the court, defendant railroad company was found liable to one of its employees whose right hand was severed while he was attempting to manually couple two railroad cars which were the fifth and sixth cars in a string of fifteen. Liability was based on Section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 2, which makes it unlawful for a railroad engaged in interstate commerce to use cars not equipped with couplers that couple automatically upon impact.

On appeal, defendant contends that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the fifth and sixth cars were brought together with impact, and further, that the district court failed to make such a finding. Plaintiff answers that although the word impact was not used expressly by the district court, such a finding is implicit in those made and must be affirmed by us since it is not clearly erroneous.¹

We think that the fourth finding of fact made by the district court is a sufficient finding of impact to support the judgment. It reads as follows:

"4. That on inspection plaintiff found the fifth and sixth cars together, the knuckles properly positioned and closed, but the knuckle lock pin not in position, and therefore, the cars were not coupled."

A district court's finding of fact should be construed liberally and found to be in consonance with the judgment, so long as that judgment is supported by evidence in the record. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 228 F.2d 629 (C.A.5, 1956). "Whenever, from facts found, other facts may be inferred which will support the judgment, such inferences will be deemed to have been drawn * * *." Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 168 F.2d 175, 179 (C.A.7), affirmed sub nom. Clayton Mark & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 336 U.S. 956, 69 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed. 1110 (1949). The findings required by the statute need not be in haec verba. The ultimate test as to their adequacy is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for decision. Schilling v. Schwitzer-Cummins Co., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 142 F.2d 82 (C.A.D.C. 1944). It has been said that the district court's findings serve as an aid to an appellate court in performing its review function by providing a clear understanding of the basis for decision below. Goodacre v. Panagopoulos, 72 App.D.C. 25, 110 F.2d 716 (C.A.D.C. 1940).

The record unquestionably established that the only purpose of impact is to bring together the knuckles of the coupler on opposing cars, and that when the knuckles are in a closed position, the pin drops by gravity and prevents the knuckles from pulling apart. As used in connection with mechanical activities, the word impact is defined as the impinging of one body against another. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd ed., 1952), p. 1246. No shock or blow is required, as defendant would have us hold. There was unchallenged testimony in the record that the couplers of the fifth and sixth cars were closed and properly positioned at the time plaintiff went between them in an attempt to manually insert the pin. Here, of course, the closing of the couplers to the extent that the holes were aligned could only have been as a result of one body impinging against another. Clearly, then, in finding that the knuckles were properly positioned, the district court found that everything necessary to effectuate coupling by "impact" had occurred.

Throughout this litigation, the defense was based on lack of "impact." In an oral deposition taken before trial and during cross examination, defendant's counsel repeatedly questioned plaintiff as to whether some factor might have prevented the cars from coming together with sufficient force to give the couplers a "fair trial," e. g., whether the brakes of the cars were on at the time...