Oppenheimer v. Smith

THE COURT. Plaintiff brought this action against V. W. Smith, E. J. Hilton, and Union Pacific Railroad Company for damages for alleged breach of contract. A special defense of res judicata was sustained.

The complaint, filed February 24, 1956, alleged that defendants Smith and Hilton were employees of the railroad; on February 25, 1952, plaintiff was in the employ of the railroad under a written contract; he has duly performed all the terms and conditions of the contract; the contract provided that no employee would be disciplined or dismissed without a fair hearing by his supervising officer; on February 26, 1952, the railroad, through Hilton, purported to give plaintiff a hearing; at the end of the “unfair hearing” Hilton said a decision would be rendered in due course; the statement was “a sham and a farce”; Smith was not present at the hearing and did not hear the evidence; he did not read it before February 28, 1952, if at all; under date of February 27, 1952, the railroad, through Smith, wrote to plaintiff, saying in part: “Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing held February 26, 1952, I find . . . That you failed to protect assignment . . . Therefore, you are discharged from the company’s service”; the transcript of the evidence taken at the hearing bears the date February 28, 1952, the testimony was not taken under oath, the testimony was not [491]signed by any witness who testified, a blank space appears in each instance at the end of all witnesses’ testimony and below the words, “I have read the foregoing & it is correct”; as a proximate result of the conduct of defendant, plaintiff was deprived by defendants of his employment and livelihood, to his wage loss and damage in the sum of $20,000.

The complaint further alleged that in February 1952 plaintiff had pending against the railroad an action for personal injuries suffered by him within the course and scope of his employment on May 6,1951, and within the meaning and purview of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act; in April 1952 judgment was entered for plaintiff in that action and against the railroad; the judgment became final; plaintiff was discharged from his employment by reason of that lawsuit and each defendant is guilty of unfair labor relations and practices, breach of the written contract of employment, all to plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $20,000.

Defendants filed separate answers. Each answer alleged as a special defense that on October 7, 1954, in an action then pending in the municipal court of Los Angeles Judicial District between the same parties and for the same cause of action as set forth in the complaint in the present action, judgment was duly entered and made ordering and adjudging that the plaintiff take nothing by his action; on April 19, 1955, the judgment of the municipal court was affirmed by the appellate department of the superior court, and it became final.