ARBITRATION DECISION
Edward M. Knapik v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. and the Newburgh and South Shore Railway Company
This suit was filed to recover damages for injuries sustained by Edward M. Knapik on February 6, 1978 when closing a plug door on Car N&W 693361 and the door fell striking him.
Mr. Knapik was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of:
- Comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of the right leg.
- Fracture right 6th and 7th ribs.
- Contusions of the head and right chest wall.
Co-defendants N&W and N&SS contributed $12,500 each to the settlement of this case under the Intra-Industry Claims Agreement, with the stipulation the matter would be submitted for arbitration of the disputed interpretation of Intra-Industry Agreement Rule 1(g). In addition to the settlement cost, the N&SS incurred costs totaling $5,545.20.
The only question at issue is whether, at the time Knapik was injured, Car N&W 693361 was IN TRANSIT as defined in Part 1, Rule 1(g) of the Intra-Industry Claims Agreement.
A review of the file develops that United States Steel Corporation had rejected Car N&W 693361 because certain load interior securing bars were missing. At the time of the occurrence the N&SS was in the process of switching the car out of the industry's building and on doing so discovered the plug door had not been closed. The car was then shoved back into the building for the purpose of closing the door. Knapik and three co-workers, assisted by the N&SS conductor and brakeman, had moved the plug door into position and were about to lock it in place when the door fell from the car striking Knapik. It is an uncontested fact that at the time of the incident Car N&W 693361 had been pulled from the building, respotted back in the building for the purpose of Closing the plug door after which it would then be again removed from the building and returned to the N&W as a rejected car to be replaced by a suitable car for loading by the Industry.
The Intra-Industry Agreement Rule 1(g) defines the term IN TRANSIT as follows:
"That period of a CAR's use when it is actually put in motion by a CARRIER or is being prepared by employees or agents of a CARRIER OR A RAILROAD to be put in motion, including all handling to destination. This includes relocation of the CAR by a CARRIER or RAILROAD within an area under control of the same shipper or of the same consignee and CARS on interchange tracks."
On February 6, 1978, the N&SS, a CARRIER, coupled into car N&W 693361 removed it from the industry's building, discovered the plug door open, returned the car to the industry's building for the purpose of closing the plug door to enable the N&SS to return the car to the N&W. Thus, in my opinion, the car was IN TRANSIT. Rule 1(g) further stipulates that a car would be regarded as being in transit when it was being prepared by employees or agents of a carrier to be put in motion, including all handling to destination. The History of the Intra-Industry Claims Agreement in discussion the assignment of relative responsibility between two or more parties followed several general theories, the first of which pertains to the point in question and reads as follows:
- The Agreement should not be applicable when the car was being handled or being made ready for handling by a party when it was IN TRANSIT.
Following respotting of the car, employees of the carrier and industry were attempting to close the plug door to enable the carrier to continue the movement of Car N&W 693361.
After a careful review of the factual situation and the Intra Industry Claims Agreement, it is my opinion the car had been placed in motion, was being made ready for handling, and was in transit at the time Mr. Knapik was injured. Consequently, the case does not fall under the purview of the Intra-Industry Claims Agreement, and the Norfolk & Western Railway Company should be dismissed from this case.
L. A. Walstad
Arbitrator
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
Overview
Officers
Agreement
Signatories
Arbitrators
Cases
Contact Us |
Site Credits |
Terms Of Service
