Court Opinion

ID: 9449189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 00:00:27.776574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.132733
License: Public Domain

VAN PELT, District Judge
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority opinion at three points:
a) As to whether a determination as to active and passive negligence is material to the decision in this case; (Here I also disagree with the trial court’s determination that the shipper’s negligence was active and the railroad’s negligence passive.)
b) As to whether clause 5 of the Industrial Track Agreement provides complete indemnity; and
c) As to the interpretation of clause 6 of the Industrial Track Agreement.
*867As above indicated, I am unable to adopt the trial court’s determination that the shipper’s negligence in this case was active and that of the railroad passive. This court in a case on appeal from Arkansas involving Texas substantive law set forth the clearest judicial definition of active and passive negligence that I have been able to find, when it said:
“Passive negligence exists where one person negligently brings about a condition or an occasion and active negligence exists where another party negligently acts upon that condition and perpetrates a wrong.” Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Crown Coach Co., 8 Cir., 178 F.2d 628 (632)
The case itself is not in point with this case but the definition is excellent. It is supported by Sec. 95 of Restatement, Restitution, referred to in the majority opinion.
I conclude that the one who brought about the condition in the instant case was the shipper who built the shed in violation of the clearance requirement and that the one who acted upon the condition was the railroad in moving cars over the track. Without the movement of the cars I conclude that Cloudy would not have been injured. The term “passive negligence” seems, therefore, more readily applicable to the shipper’s acts than to the railroad’s. It was so held by District Judge Bruchhausen in Spielman v. N.Y. N.H. & Hartford Railroad Co., D.C., 147 F.Supp. 451, in a case as nearly in point with our case as any I have found. A dangerous condition was created by the Trap Rock Company in erecting a post too close to the side of the railroad track. In a case brought by the injured employee, the railroad was held actively negligent. The railroad claimed over against the owner of the realty. Judge Bruchhausen stated: “Surely the Railroad’s entrance upon Trap Rock’s premises, over which it had a right of way, did not transform its actions into passive negligence.” It is also to be observed in the instant case that the railroad after the building of the shed moved its track some eight inches to provide greater clearance and could be held to be guilty of negligence in not moving it a sufficient distance to eliminate the dangerous situation.
I conclude that both the shipper and the railroad were guilty of negligence and that their negligence concurred to produce the injury. The majority opinion assumes for the purpose of this decision that the railroad was guilty of negligence.
It is, therefore, my conclusion, to which I make reference later, that both being negligent the latter portion of clause 6 applies, to-wit:
“ " * * and if any claim or liability other than from fire shall arise from joint or concurring negligence of both parties hereto it shall be borne by them equally.”
Such cases as Booth-Kelly, cited in the majority opinion, which allow complete indemnity, do so on the basis that the railroad was guilty of passive negligence and the shipper or property owner of active negligence. I do not believe these cases have application in the absence of a finding that the shipper or property owner was guilty of active negligence.
I disagree with the majority opinion that clause 5 in and of itself provides complete indemnity in the situation here presented. Clause 5, as I view it, is a non-waiver provision only. If it is to be construed as affording complete indemnity under every circumstance, and regardless of the negligence of the railroad, then the language just quoted from clause 6 is without application or use.
As a background for my interpretation of clause 6 I would first point out that it is basic in indemnity law
“ * * * that a contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his ' own negligent acts, where such intention is not expressed in unequivocal terms.” 27 Am.Jur., Indemnity § 15.
*868This rule applies whether the negligence of the indemnitee is said to be the sole cause of the accident or only a concurrent cause. See 175 A.L.R. 8, 34-38.
If the railroad wants to hold shippers as insurers of loss such as that suffered in this case, I would require that it do so in more explicit language.
It was said in Union Pacific Rd. Co. v. Bridal Veil Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 219 F.2d 825:
“This court should be and is reluctant to hold the track contract one of insurance. If that was actually intended it would have been easy to say so in unmistakable language in the contract. * * * if the contract were spelled out as one of insurance then you might find the shippers hiring trucks instead of railroad cars.” (219 F.2d 833)
Another axiomatic rule was set forth in Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Murry, 231 Ark. 559, 331 S.W.2d 98, 100, where the court said:
“ * * * we have held many times that in case of doubt, or ambiguity, a contract or agreement shall be interpreted against the party who prepared the instrument. See American Insurance Company v. Rowland, 177 Ark. 875, 8 S.W.2d 452.”
Since appellee drew the agreement involved here and since it is an Arkansas contract, it should in case of doubt be interpreted against appellee.
Examining clause 6 in the light of the foregoing authorities it is to be observed as to the first sentence, which is not applicable here since it relates only to fire, that it applies “regardless of railroad negligence”. No such language is used in clause 5 or in the indemnity provision in the second sentence of clause 6. It is my conclusion that if the indemnity provision of clause 6 is to apply “regardless of railroad negligence” then the agreement should have so stated by repeating in the second sentence these words which were used in the first sentence, to-wit, “regardless of railroad negligence.” Likewise, if clause 5 is to be regarded as an indemnity provision the same language should have been repeated in clause 5. Reading clause 6 and observing that the first sentence applies regardless of railroad negligence and observing the omission of these words in the second sentence, it is arguable that the shipper had the right to believe that the 100% indemnity provision did not apply “regardless of railroad negligence”.
In this case both parties were negligent. Under this court’s definition in Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Crown Coach Co., supra, both were either passively negligent or the railroad’s negligence was active and the shipper’s negligence was passive. In any event it was a joint or concurring negligence. Webster defines concurrent as “contributing to the same event or effect”. It has also been defined as “operating simultaneously”. The accident could not have happened without the combining of the negligence of each. I would therefore apply the above quoted portion of clause 6 relating to joint and concurring negligence and would award judgment to the railroad for 50% of the amount paid Cloudy and not for 100% as ordered by the trial court.
I recognize this as a difficult case and I do not by this dissent intend in any manner to be critical of the distinguished trial judge and my two esteemed colleagues who have reached a different conclusion.