Railroad relies upon the emphasized part of the indemnity clause to transfer its liability over to Crown Can. Is such an intention expressed by 'clear, precise and unequivocal language' or are words of general import used so that every intendment must be construed against Railroad? Without commenting upon the wisdom of this phase of Pennsylvania law but applying it as I must, I believe it to be the latter.
In the first paragraph of the indemnity clause pertaining to fire caused by locomotives, Crown Can clearly, precisely and unequivocally agreed to indemnify Railroad 'regardless of Railroad Company negligence'. Those or similar words were not used in the second paragraph upon which Railroad relies. Instead, words of general import were used, and absolutely nothing was said concerning liability 'regardless of Railroad Company negligence'. By inserting those words in the first paragraph, Railroad and Crown Can show that they knew the import of and necessity for those words; by omitting them from the second paragraph, the parties obviously intended a different construction- that Crown Can would not indemnify Railroad for Railroad's negligence.
Railroad urges me to adopt the reasoning of Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 902, 20 A.L.R.2d 695, wherein the identical agreement was interpreted and an opposite conclusion reached. In that case that Court applied the statutory and common law of Oregon; this is Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, Railroad is not entitled to complete indemnity from Crown Can, when we have a jury finding that the railroad was negligent.
On the motions for new trial, Railroad has pointed out that a question asked by plaintiff's counsel of plaintiff's actuary contained an erroneous calculation of plaintiff's annual net loss of earnings, i.e., $ 3,900 instead of approximately $ 3,200, and that Railroad objected 'to any figures * * * based on this * * * premise'.
The highest figure plaintiff's actuary testified to as possible loss of future earnings was $ 91,884- which represented $ 3,900 paid annually for thirty-six years reduced to the present value at a rate of 2 1/2%. Railroad contends this figure should be $ 75,712.42 based on an annual payment of $ 3,213.60. The figure given by the actuary was not controlling but was merely to aid the jury to determine plaintiff's possible future loss of earnings as one item in calculating total damages. It did not include past loss of earnings, past and future medical expenses, nor past and future pain and suffering. The jury obviously did not accept the actuary's figure since the jury's finding for all items of damage was $ 80,750, a lesser amount. The jury could well have found the sum of $ 75,712.42 as representing future loss of earnings, and in view of their findings of total damages of $ 80,750 this would leave approximately $ 5,000 for past loss of earnings, past and future medical expenses, and past and future pain and suffering.
The jury had all the correct facts of this case before them, and also had sufficient information to compute properly the present value of plaintiff's future loss of earnings.
One other reason alleged in support of the motions for new trial merits discussion. Defendant and third-party defendant each contend that the verdict is excessive.
Plaintiff was seriously injured, and in accordance with the evidence and the jury's special findings, he is entitled to relatively large damages. However, I believe under all the evidence he will be adequately compensated with a verdict of $ 70,000 and any amount above that is excessive.
By so reducing the judgment heretofore entered on the jury's special verdict, any incorrectness of the actuary's testimony becomes immaterial, and any merit to the above argument for a new trial loses its validity.
If plaintiff accedes to this remittitur, then of course third-party plaintiff's judgment against third-party defendant will have to be reduced proportionately.
Accordingly, the motion of third-party plaintiff for judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict is denied.
The motion of third-party defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto under Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C. is denied.
If plaintiff remits all of his judgment in excess of $ 70,000, the motions of defendant and third-party plaintiff and of third-party defendant for a new trial are denied; otherwise, these motions will be granted.
Orders may be submitted.