Anderson v. United States

118 F. Supp. 498, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4189
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky
DecidedNovember 11, 1953
DocketCiv. Nos. 635, 670
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 F. Supp. 498 (Anderson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 498, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4189 (W.D. Ky. 1953).

Opinion

SHELBOURNE, Chief Judge.

Case No. 635 above was filed by plaintiff, C. Paul Anderson, against the United States, as defendant, on April 15, 1952. The plaintiff there sought to recover $25,000 on account of injuries sustained by him on the morning of April 16, 1951, while the plaintiff was a Fireman on the Illinois Central passenger train running from Memphis to North Cairo, Illinois, when the engine and boiler of the passenger train was struck by a revolving crane on a piece of heavy army equipment, known as a Link-Belt Speeder, loaded on a flat car comprising in part a freight train traveling South on a track parallel to the track on which the passenger train was proceeding north, the accident in which the plaintiff was [500]*500injured occurring a short distance south of Clinton, Kentucky.

Action No. 670 was originally filed October 10, 1952 by Della Irwin Carlson, Executrix of the Estate of Peter A. Carlson, deceased. Subsequently, Thos. J. Marshall, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Peter A. Carlson, under appointment by the Hickman County Court at Clinton, Kentucky, was substituted as plaintiff, in that action. Recovery was sought in the sum of $100,000 under the Kentucky Death Statute, by reason of the death of decedent Peter A. Carlson, who was the Engineer upon the passenger train upon which C. Paul Anderson, plaintiff in the pending case, was the Fireman.

In the above numbered cases, the defendant United States, with leave of Court, impleaded the Illinois Central Railroad Company, charging that the latter’s negligence was the sole or contributing cause of the accident which resulted in the injuries to Anderson and in the death of Carlson, and the Government sought a recovery against the Illinois Central for all or a contributable portion of any judgment which might be rendered against it in favor of the plaintiffs.

The cases were consolidated for trial and tried to the Court without a Jury.

The Court makes the following

Findings of Fact.

1. United States of America (hereafter called United States) owned six certain mobile cranes (hereafter called the six cranes) located at the Granite City Army Engineer’s Depot (hereafter called the Army Depot) at Granite City, Illinois. The six cranes were manufactured by Link-Belt Speeder Corporation and were known as Link-Belt Speeders; were all the same model and construction ; and were specifically identified by their respective serial numbers. The Army Depot was operated by the War Department of the United States; and the employees at the Army Depot were employees of the United States. The six cranes were located at the Army Depot for the preparation by the Army Depot employees of the United States for transportation to a port of embarkation and for shipment overseas.

2. While the six cranes were at the Army Depot, the United States by its Army Depot employees (a) prepared the six cranes (1) for transportation by rail from the Army Depot to the Port of Embarkation at New Orleans, Louisiana and (11) for shipment from the Port of Embarkation to an undisclosed place overseas, and (b) loaded each of the six cranes on six separate flat cars located on railroad spur tracks of the Army Depot.

3. After the United States Army Depot employees prepared the six cranes for transportation and shipment and loaded them on the six flat cars, each of the six cranes consisted of (a) one single assembled piece of equipment composed of a revolving house (or cab) mounted on a truck frame seated on a ten wheel axle base with attached truck cab and weighed 53,000 pounds and (b) certain detached crane parts, including the boom.

4. The revolving house of each of the six cranes revolved or turned on a metal rotating device or turntable by which the house was attached to the truck frame. On the inside of the revolving house of each of the six cranes, there was a mechanism and lever for the purpose of locking the rotating or turning device so that the house would remain stationary and in a fastened and secure position and would not turn. When this locking mechanism was placed in a locked position by the lever inside the cab, the locking device became engaged with the teeth of the turntable or rotating device so that the turntable and the house would not turn. When the locking mechanism was not in a locked position, the house would turn on the application of a sufficient amount of centrifugal force.

5. When the United States Army Depot employees prepared the six cranes for transportation and shipment, such employees did not lock the locking mechanism of five of the six cranes; [501]*501but, instead, prepared such five cranes for transportation and shipment with the locking mechanism unlocked.

6. Before the United States Army Depot employees loaded the six cranes onto the flat cars at the Army Depot, such employees securely sealed the doors and entrances into the revolving houses of each of the six cranes and placed the seal of the United States thereon. These United States employees sealed the entrance into the rotating houses in such a manner that a determination of whether the locking mechanism was locked or unlocked was not ascertainable without a forced opening of such entrance and by breaking of the seal of the United States.

7. After the United States Army Depot employees sealed the doors to the rotating houses of the six cranes, other United States Army Depot employees loaded the six cranes on the six flat cars on the tracks at the Army Depot. The six cranes were thereby loaded by the employees of the United States with the doors to the houses sealed and with the locking mechanisms inside the houses of five of the six cranes unlocked.

8. When the United States Army Depot employees prepared and loaded the six cranes, such employees secured the revolving houses of each of the six cranes to the truck frames by open end hooks. After the preparation and loading of the six cranes, the open end hooks were located in such a manner that they were concealed under the frame of the ■cranes. The use of open end hooks for securing these rotating houses to the truck frames was contrary to the rules ■of the Association of American Railroads of which the War Department of the United States is a member.

9. Prior to the preparation and loading of the six cranes, the United States Army Depot employees had prepared, loaded and shipped a considerable number of cranes of the same and similar type; and such employees had considerable experience in the preparation, loading and shipment of such cranes. The United States Army Depot employees knew that the preparation of these cranes for transportation and shipment with the locking mechanism in the rotating houses unlocked was dangerous; that when such locking mechanism was unlocked the rotating houses would turn upon the application of centrifugal force; and that there was always a probability that such unlocked houses would turn when the cranes were in motion under ordinary conditions of transportation.

10. After loading the six cranes on the six flat cars at the Army Depot, employees of the United States transported the six flat cars and their loads by rail with a locomotive of the United States to a point just outside the property of the Army Depot.

11. On a prepared form, headed “U. S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Masters v. State
668 P.2d 73 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1983)
Walter v. Dow Chemical Co.
195 N.W.2d 323 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 F. Supp. 498, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-united-states-kywd-1953.