Fraser-Patterson Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.
79 F. Supp. 424, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2302 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
South Carolina's railroad fire statute imposes absolute liability for fire damage communicated by locomotive engines, precluding defenses of contributory negligence or willfulness, and valid indemnity contracts between a railroad and a commercial user of its facilities are enforceable even for fires originating from the main line.
Facts:
- Plaintiff owned certain property that was destroyed by fire.
- On or about April 16, 1945, Plaintiff's property was destroyed by fire, which Plaintiff alleged was communicated by Defendant's locomotive engine.
- Plaintiff and Defendant had a written contract in which Defendant agreed to furnish certain facilities on an industrial track for Plaintiff's use.
- In consideration for the industrial track facilities, Plaintiff agreed to indemnify and save harmless Defendant against any and all claims for loss or damage by fire communicated by Defendant's locomotive engines or trains to buildings used by Plaintiff in connection with the business served by the industrial track.
- Defendant stipulated for this protection as a condition of providing terminal services and facilities to Plaintiff elsewhere than at its regular station.
- Plaintiff contended that the indemnity contract applied only if a fire was communicated from Defendant's engines while said engines were on the industrial track, and not from engines on Defendant's main line.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages against Defendant under South Carolina Code Section 8362 for property destroyed by fire allegedly communicated by Defendant's locomotive engine.
- Defendant, while admitting some property destruction, denied fault and asserted two affirmative defenses in its answer: (1) contributory negligence and contributory willfulness, and (2) a written indemnity contract with Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff filed a motion before the District Court to strike both of Defendant's affirmative defenses, arguing they were redundant, immaterial, impertinent, evidentiary, and prejudicial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does contributory negligence or contributory willfulness constitute a valid defense to a cause of action brought under South Carolina Code Section 8362, which imposes absolute liability on railroad corporations for fire damage? 2. Is a written contract indemnifying a railroad against fire damage to a commercial user's property, communicated by the railroad's locomotive engines, a valid defense to a claim under Section 8362, even if the fire originates from the railroad's main line?
Opinions:
Majority - WYCHE, District Judge
No, contributory negligence or contributory willfulness does not constitute a valid defense to a cause of action brought under South Carolina Code Section 8362. The court referenced multiple South Carolina Supreme Court decisions, including Thompson v. Richmond & D. R. Co. (24 S.C. 366) and Mellette v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (181 S.C. 62), which establish that Section 8362 imposes absolute liability on railroad companies for fire damage communicated by their engines or originating on their right-of-way. This statutory liability eliminates any inquiry into negligence, due care, proximate cause, or remote cause. Therefore, a defense of contributory negligence or willfulness, which requires the defendant's negligence as a 'concurring proximate cause' for the injury, cannot apply where the defendant's liability is absolute and not predicated on negligence. Yes, a written contract indemnifying a railroad against fire damage to a commercial user's property, communicated by the railroad's locomotive engines, is a valid defense to a claim under Section 8362, even if the fire originates from the railroad's main line. The court cited a long line of South Carolina Supreme Court cases, such as Mayfield v. Southern Railway (85 S.C. 165) and Palmetto Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. (154 S.C. 129), which have consistently upheld the validity and public policy compliance of such indemnity contracts. Furthermore, the court specifically addressed and rejected Plaintiff's contention that the contract should be limited to fires originating on the industrial track, reaffirming the broad language of the Mayfield precedent that such an exemption covers fires communicated by any locomotive or train, 'wherever they may be.'
Analysis:
This case underscores the unique legal landscape surrounding railroad liability for fire in South Carolina, establishing that statutory absolute liability under Section 8362 overrides common law defenses like contributory negligence. It also solidifies the enforceability of broad contractual indemnification clauses between railroads and their industrial customers, even extending to fires originating from main lines, which significantly shifts risk. This decision provides critical guidance for businesses entering into agreements with railroads for special track facilities, emphasizing the need to understand the full scope of indemnity provisions.
