Overview
Case summary
Plaintiff W. H. Hartshorn, an employee of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company, sued the company and contractor E. H. Bradbury in Missouri state court for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by a water spout Bradbury constructed near the railroad track while performing work for the company. The railroad company, a nonresident, removed the case to federal court. Hartshorn moved to remand, arguing the cause of action was not severable because Bradbury was a Missouri resident. The federal court denied the motion, holding the causes of action were severable: Bradbury's liability arose from his misfeasance (tort), while the railroad company's liability arose from its nonfeasance in failing to provide a safe workplace (implied contract under master-servant relation). The court followed precedent distinguishing between tort and contractual liabilities in removal cases.
Abstract
An injured railroad employee sued his employer and a contractor in state court for injuries caused by a water spout constructed near the tracks. The nonresident railroad removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiff sought remand, arguing the claims were not severable due to the contractor's residency. The court denied remand, holding the claims severable because the contractor's liability stemmed from tortious misfeasance while the employer's arose from nonfeasance under the master-servant relationship.
Opinion of the court
opinionPHILIPS, District Judge
- Causes of action against railroad company and Bradbury are severable
- Bradbury's liability is for misfeasance (tort)
- Railroad company's liability is for nonfeasance based on implied contractual duty to provide safe workplace
- No joint action alleged between defendants
- Precedent from Hukill v. Railroad Co. applied
Jurisdiction
challenged- Defendant railroad company is a nonresident corporation
- Defendant Bradbury is a resident citizen of Missouri
- Cause of action was removed to federal court by defendant railroad company
Procedural posture
- Whether cause of action is severable for removal purposes
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Causes of action are severable because liability of Bradbury arises from misfeasance (tort) while liability of railroad company arises from nonfeasance (implied contract)
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court erred in not remanding case to state court due to non-severable cause of action — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
Standards of review
- Severability of cause of action for removal — de novo Legal issue of separable controversy reviewed de novo
Timeline
Suit instituted by Hartshorn in circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., against railroad company and Bradbury
Initial filing of case in state court
Defendant railroad company petitioned for removal of case to federal circuit court
Outcome: Case removed to federal court
Invocation of federal jurisdiction based on separable controversy
Plaintiff filed motion to remand case to state court, arguing cause of action not separable
Challenge to federal jurisdiction; central issue in case
Plaintiff Hartshorn, while climbing on outside of freight car to reach brakes, was struck by water spout projecting from tank constructed by Bradbury, causing injury
Underlying incident giving rise to personal injury lawsuit
Court denied motion to remand, holding causes of action were severable
Outcome: Motion denied
Final disposition retaining federal jurisdiction
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Plaintiff Hartshorn was an employee of defendant railroad company
- Defendant Bradbury was engaged by railroad company to grade and fill trestle approach to bridge
- Bradbury constructed a water tank with spout dangerously near railroad track for his steam shovel
- Plaintiff, while climbing on outside of freight car to reach brakes, was struck by water spout and injured
- Petition alleges negligence of both defendants in constructing/maintaining spout and failing to warn plaintiff
Disputed questions
- Exact relation of Bradbury to railroad company (employee vs. independent contractor)
- Whether railroad company directed construction of water tank/spout
Procedural history
3 steps- Suit instituted in circuit court of Jackson county, Mo.
- Removed to federal circuit court by defendant railroad company
- Plaintiff filed motion to remand
Evidence in the record
- Petition allegations regarding negligence of defendants
- Petition filed in state court
- Evidence type: Petition allegations · Challenge basis: Legal sufficiency for determining severability · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Court analyzed petition to determine nature of liabilities · Challenged on appeal: false
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
Statutes
- Federal removal statutes (implied)
Standards & doctrines
- Doctrine of respondeat superior
- Separable controversy doctrine for removal
Legal principles applied
- Prima facie presumption that person doing service for another is an employee
- Liability for independent contractor's acts generally not imputed to employer unless directed