SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS C. BROWN AND CARGILL, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad appealed the dismissal of its third-party complaint against Cargill, which the railroad sought to implead for indemnification in an employee negligence action. The court held that under Florida's permissive pleading rules, the railroad could characterize the facts in its own way through a third-party complaint, regardless of how the original plaintiff characterized them, and reversed the dismissal.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Rule 1.180 permits the original defendant to place its own characterization upon the events and assert claims against third parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence. The trial court erred in confining the defendant to the plaintiff's version of the facts.
[1] A third-party complaint is not barred as a matter of law solely because the plaintiff's complaint alleges active negligence against the original defendant.
[2] A defendant may characterize the events in a third-party complaint differently than the plaintiff does in the original complaint.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 1.180 allows the original defendant to place his own characterization upon the events.”
Establishes that defendants are not bound by the plaintiff's characterization in asserting third-party claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEmployee Brown sued Seaboard Coast Line Railroad after a boxcar door fell on his legs, alleging negligence and violation of the Federal Employers' Lia…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Third Party Complaint For Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
Brown, an employee of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, sued his employer after a boxcar door fell on his legs, alleging that the injury occurred “by reason of the negligence of the defendant and its violation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of the United States in failing and neglecting to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work and reasonably safe equipment on which to work.” Seaboard in turn filed a third party complaint against Cargill, alleging that Cargill loaded the boxcar and that its negligence in doing so caused the door to fall on Brown. The third party complaint alleges that Cargill’s negligence “was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or contributed with the negligence of Plaintiff which resulted in the alleged accident.” It went on to deny negligence on the part of the railroad, but asserted that if the railroad be found negligent “such negligence would only be passive in nature in this action and therefore” the railroad would be “vicariously or secondarily liable.” It further asserted that “Any negligence of Industry to Plaintiff is active and primary,” and sought indemnification. The trial judge dismissed the third party complaint in an order which “finds that the Third Party Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Third Party Defendant, Cargill, Inc., in that it affirmatively appears from the Complaint herein that the Third Party Plaintiff, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, is charged with active negligence by the Plaintiff, barring Defendant, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, from recovering indemnity from Third Party Defendant, Cargill, Inc., as a matter of law.”
We do not agree that Brown’s complaint against Seaboard alleges active negligence as distinguished from the sort of slight breach of duty which will support a FELA action.1 This mistake is beside the point. Rule 1.180 allows the original defendant to place his own characterization upon the events. “The third party defendant may also assert any claim against the third party defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third party plaintiff . . .” The purpose of the rule is to settle the controversy in a single action, and it would be unfair to the defendant-third party plaintiff to confine it to the version of the facts asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance.
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . The Supreme Court of Florida has treated this subject recently in a comprehensive opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Adkins, Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Fla.1974, 296 So. 2d 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Truck Lines, Inc. v. White Motor Corp., 316 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…elevator manufacturer did not allege in its third party complaint that it was merely guilty of secondary or passive negligence rather than active negligence. We find the result reached in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brown, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 843, to be applicable to the instant situation.' In that case it was held that Rule 1.180, RCP, allows the defendant, third party plaintiff, charged with active negligence in the original complaint to place his own characterization upon the events and m…
-
Safecare Med. Ctr. v. Donald C. Howard, D.O., 670 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…jamin occurred at the pleading stage of the lawsuit, before the issues had been developed. Benjamin follows that line of cases which liberally allow third party claims for indemnity at the beginning of a lawsuit. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Brown, 297 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. White Motor Corp., 316 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Linpro Florida, Inc. v. Almandinger, 603 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). This liberality fulfills a purpose of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1…
-
Home Indem. Co. v. Edwards, 360 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…he plaintiff in the main suit, but is entitled to allege, and to prove, that its negligence, if any, was passive or secondary. Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. White Motor Corporation, 316 So. 2d 579 (3d DCA 1975); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Brown, 297 So. 2d 843 (2nd DCA 1974); Bodin Apparel v. Superior Steam Service, 328 So. 2d 533 (3d DCA 1976); INA v. King, 340 So. 2d 1175 (4th DCA 1976). In the INA v. King, case, the court, in an opinion by Judge Alderman, stated: “. . . We conclude that it is an in-de…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 296 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)