Court Opinion

ID: 9452980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:58:43.113658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:26.774750
License: Public Domain

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The railroad employee to whom the majority opinion refers was John M. Musgrove, who was seriously injured on the night of April 13, 1965, when Rock Island pushed or shoved the freight car on which he was riding along its track beside the “beam box” where there was insufficient clearance. Musgrove sued the railroad company in an Oklahoma state court to recover damages for his injuries. He charged the company with several acts of negligence, including the following:
“The defendant Railroad Company was negligent in sending the plaintiff onto the east track in the dark of night when it knew or should have known by the exercise of ordinary care that there was not sufficient clearance between the west track and a metal scales located adjacent to the track, which would not permit this plaintiff to safely perform his duties and orders as a brakeman at said time and place.
“Defendant Railroad Company was further guilty of negligence in not posting any .sign or warning that there was not sufficient clearance for a man to ride the side of a box-car through the scales on said track immediately adjacent to the Colorado Mill and Elevator Company.
“The defendant Railroad Company was further guilty of negligence in requiring this plaintiff to spot these particular cars at night when they knew or should have known that the location of the track to certain obstructions would create a dangerous and hazardous condition for this plaintiff.”
It seems to me that unquestionably Rock Island was negligent in these respects. The District Court found that
“ * * * During the movement of Car No. SA 418 over the west scale track of the leased premises, Musgrove was crushed between the weight scale housing or beam box and the side of Car No. SA 418, and sustained severe injuries.”
This meant, of course, that, in the darkness of night, Rock Island had propelled the freight car on which Musgrove was *838riding into the unlighted area where there was insufficient clearance. It had known for 40 years that the clearance between its track and the beam box was insufficient, but it took no step to remedy the dangerous situation, or even to warn against it.1 On November 5, 1965, a judgment was entered by the state court reflecting a compromise of their controversy by Musgrove and Rock Island, by the terms of which the latter paid the former the sum of $50,000.
In this indemnity action the railroad company seeks to recover the sum so paid from Colorado Milling & Elevator Company to whom it had leased a portion of its property on which were situated buildings and structures appropriate for the milling business, including the scales and the beam box. The lease was executed August 12, 1964. The majority affirm the District Court, holding that numbered paragraphs 3 and 14 of the lease constitute an agreement by Colorado Milling to indemnify Rock Island against any loss that “arises from or is connected with * * * any condition whatsoever in the premises.” This is a holding that by its lease of August 12, 1964, Colorado Milling indemnified Rock Island against any loss arising from a condition that Rock Island had known of and tolerated for more than 40 years. The mere statement of the proposition leads me to doubt whether the parties to the lease intended the indemnity provisions to apply to structures in existence when the lease was made. But, regardless of that, I think the railroad company is seeking indemnity against its own negligence, which can be done only if there is a contractual provision clearly, expressly and unequivocally providing for such indemnity.
Even if paragraphs 3 and 14 of the lease can properly be said to provide indemnity against loss by the railroad company because of its location of the beam box, I think it correct to say that the beam box was not the primary and proximate cause of the accident.2 If the acts of active negligence of the railroad company (for which it paid $50,000) had not occurred, there would have been no accident. So, I repeat, Rock Island’s negligence caused Musgrove’s injuries, and it is seeking indemnity against its own negligent acts.
Contracts for indemnity are construed strictly against the indemnitee unless the indemnitor is a professional issuer of indemnity bonds. A contract of indemnity will not be construed to apply to a loss caused by the indemnitee’s own negligence, unless it clearly appears from the contract that the parties so intended. This intention cannot be inferred, but must appear in precise, exact, express, unequivocal language before the indemnitor can be held to answer for the negligence of the indemnitee. These propositions are so generally accepted and so well established in practically all jurisdictions that citation of authority to support them is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that the books are full of cases so holding.
There is not a word in paragraphs 3 and 14 of the lease — nor indeed anywhere in that document — which provides or even suggests or hints that the parties intended idemnification against the railroad company’s negligence. That being true, I think the railroad company’s action fails, and that the judgment of the District Court should be reversed; so, I respectfully dissent.

. After the accident the railroad company installed a “No Clearance” sign.

. I reject, as not supported in the record, the District Court’s finding of fact that “ * * * insufficient clearance on the leased premises was the proximate cause of the accident and resulting injuries to plaintiff’s employee, John Michael Mus-grove.” This was at most passive negligence, but it was the active negligence of the railroad company which hurtled Musgrove against the beam box it knew was there in the way.