Saxton v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1931
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SAXTON v. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO.

256 N.Y. 363

176 N.E. 425

SAXTON

v.DELAWARE & HUDSON CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 12, 1931.

Action by Clarence M. Saxton, against the Delaware & Hudson Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Division (231 App. Div. 777,245 N. Y. S. 917), and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Joseph Rosch, P. C. Dugan, and J. L. Fitzgerald, all of Albany, for appellant.

James A. Leary, of Saratoga Springs, for respondent.

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff, a trainman employed by the defendant, was injured through the parting of a coupler between two cars on a freight train. That was due to a defective drawbar which held the coupler in place. The jury found upon sufficient evidence that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant, but the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, because of error in the charge to the jury, if a finding of negligence is necessary to sustain a recovery.

The complaint alleges that the train was operated in violation of the Safety Appliance Act of the United States (Mason's U. S. Code, tit. 45, c. 1, § 2 [45 USCA § 2]). That act provides: ‘It shall be unlawful for any common carrier * * * to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with coupler coupling automatically by impact.’ The statutory duty imposed is absolute and unqualified, and, ‘if the railroad does, in point of fact, use cars which do not comply with the standard, it violates the plain prohibitions of the law, and there arises from that violation a liability to make compensation to one who is injured by it.’ St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 295, 28 S. Ct. 616, 621, 52 L. Ed. 1061;Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617, 37 S. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931.

‘Nonperformance of that duty could not be evaded or excused by proof that the corporation had used ordinary care in the selection of proper couplers or reasonable diligence in using them and ascertaining their condition from time to time.’ Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 574, 31 S. Ct. 612, 616, 55 L. Ed. 582. The statutory prohibition includes the use of cars equipped with a coupler which has become defective during such use. From the mere fact that a coupler failed to perform its function, an inference may be drawn that the carrier violated its absolute duty. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v....