United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 August 1908
• Docket Number: 2,566.
• Citation: 163 F. 517
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

163 F. 517

UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.

No. 2,566.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 22, 1908

Syllabus by the Court

The safety appliance law of Congress, in the situations in which it is applicable, imposes upon a railway company an absolute duty to maintain the prescribed coupling appliances in operative condition, and is not satisfied by the exercise of reasonable care to that end. St. Louis, Iron Mountain &amp Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 28 Sup.Ct 616.

Ralph Hartzell, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Luther M. Walter, Special Asst. U.S. Atty. (Earl M. Cranston, U.S. Atty., on the brief).

Henry T. Rogers (Pierpont Fuller, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS District judge.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge.

This writ of error challenges a judgment for the defendant in a civil action to recover a penalty for an alleged violation of the safety appliance law of Congress embodied in Act March 2 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85, and Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885). Stripped of matters about which there is no controversy here, the violation charged consisted in hauling a car, in the usual course of transportation, when one of the couplers thereon was broken and inoperative, so that it could not be coupled or uncoupled without the necessity of a man going between the ends of the cars. The trial was to a jury, and the single question presented to us is whether or not the duty of the defendant, in respect of the maintenance of the coupler in an operative condition, was correctly stated in the portion of the court's charge, which reads:

'The act, however, must necessarily have a reasonable construction. These couplings will get out of repair, and it takes time to repair them. It takes time to discover whether or not they are out of repair. It is the duty of the railway companies to use prudence and the ordinary diligence of a business man, keeping in view the purposes of the act, to keep these couplings in repair. * * * And it is for you to determine in this case whether or not the defendant used reasonable care in ascertaining whether the car was in good repair, and then, again, whether the defendant used reasonable care in putting the coupler in good repair, after it ascertained that it was out of repair. If you find that it did use reasonable care in both instances, then it is not liable, and you should return a verdict in favor of the defendant; otherwise, you should find for the United States.' Applying to the evidence the law as so interpreted, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which the court declined to disturb upon a motion for a new trial. United States v. Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. (D.C.) 150 F. 442. That the interpretation of this law of Congress has been attended with difficulty is attested by many varying opinions in the reported cases, and that there are considerations tending to sustain the construction placed upon it by the District Court is attested by the opinion rendered upon the motion for a new trial and by the sustaining opinions in others cases, notably St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Delk (C.C.A.) 158 F. 931; but, as we read the opinion of the Supreme Court in the more recent case of St. Louis,

...