Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Co Chicago Co v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin Chicago St Ry Co v. Same 311

Decision Date29 November 1926
Docket Number310,Nos. 87,s. 87
Citation272 U.S. 605,47 S.Ct. 207,71 L.Ed. 432
PartiesNAPIER, Atty. Gen., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. CHICAGO & N. W. R. CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. SAME. , and 311
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Thomas Stevenson, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant in No. 87.

Mr. R. C. Alston, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee in No. 87.

Messrs Nye F. Morehouse and R. N. Van Doren, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error in No. 310.

Messrs. H. H. Field and C. S. Jefferson, both of Chicago, Ill., and John B. Sanborn and Chauncey E. Blake, both of Madison, Wis., for plaintiff in error in No. 311.

Mr. R. M. Rieser, of Madison, Wis., for defendant in error in Nos. 310 and 311.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases require a determination of the scope and effect of the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. Act Feb. 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, as amended by Act March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and Act June 7, 1924, c. 355, 43 Stat. 659 (Comp. St. §§ 8630-8633). The main question, which is the same in the three cases, is one of statutory construction. It is whether the Boiler Inspection Act has occupied the field of regulating locomotive equipment used on a highway of interstate commerce, so as to preclude state legislation. Congress obviously has power to do so. Compare Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370, 32 § Ct. 160, 56 L. Ed. 237; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 250 U. S. 566, 40 S. Ct. 36, 63 L. Ed. 1142; Oregon-Washington R. R. & Nav. Co. v. Washington, 270 U. S. 87, 46 S. Ct. 279, 70 L. Ed. 482.

No. 87 involves a Georgia statute which prescribes an automatic door to the firebox. Act Aug. 18, 1924; Georgia Laws 1924, p. 173. That case is here on direct appeal from a final decree of the federal District Court, entered December 23, 1924, granting the injunction. 2 F.(2d) 891. Nos. 310 and 311 involve a Wisconsin statute which prescribes a cab curtain, Wisconsin Statutes, § 1806a, as added by chapter 139, Laws of 1923. These cases are here on writs of error to the Supreme Court of that state, which affirmed a judgment denying the injunction. 188 Wis. 232, 205 N. W. 932. In Georgia, the details of the device were prescribed by the Legislature. In Wisconsin, the specifications were prescribed by an order of the state Railroad Commission. In each case, an interstate carrier sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing, in respect to locomotives used on its lines, a state law which prohibits use within the state of locomotives not equipped with the device prescribed. Some of the engines were being operated entirely within the state, some across the state line to and from adjoining states. It is conceded that the federal Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts apply to a lomotive used on a highway of interstate commerce, even if it is operated wholly within one state and is not engaged in hauling interstate freight or passengers. Southern Ry. Co. v United States, 222 U. S. 20, 32 S. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72; Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 36 S. Ct. 482, 60 L. Ed. 874.

Prior to the passage of the Boiler Inspection Act, Congress had, by the Safety Appliance Act and several amendments, itself made requirements concerning the equipment of locomotives used in interstate commerce. It had required a power driving wheel brake, automatic couplers, grabirons or handholds, drawbars, safety ash pans, and sill steps. Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531; Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943; Act May 30, 1908, c. 225, 35 Stat. 476; Act April 14, 1910, c. 160, 36 Stat. 298 (Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.). Congress first conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission power in respect to locomotive equipment in 1911. The original act applied only to the boiler. it is entitled:

'An act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by compelling common carriers engaged in interstate commerce to equip their locomtives with safe and suitable boilers and appurtenances thereto.'

The provisions of that act were extended in 1915 to 'include the entire locomotive and tender and all parts and appurtenances thereof.' In 1924, section 2 of the original act was amended to read as follows:

'That it shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the same are put, that the same may be employed in the active service of such carrier without unnecessary peril to life or limb, and unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof have been inspected from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this act and are able to withstand such test or tests as may be prescribed in the rules and regulations hereinafter provided for.'

Other sections confer upon inspectors and the Commission power to prescribe requirements and establish rules to secure compliance with the provisions of section 2. From time to time since the passage of the original act, the Commission has required that locomotives used in interstate commerce be equipped with various devices.1 But it has made no order requiring either a particular type of fire box door or a cab curtain. Nor has Congress legislated specifically in respect to either device.

The Georgia act provides that the—

'automatic door shall be so constructed and operated by steam, compressed air or electricity, as deemed best and most efficient by officer of such railroad. The device for operating such door shall be so constructed that it may be operated by the fireman of said engine by means of a push-button or other appliance located on the floor of the engine deck or floor of the tender * * * to enable the fireman while firing such engine by pressure with his feet to operate such door for firing of such engine.'

The automatic fire door conserves the health of the fireman by protecting him from exposures to extremes of heat and cold while performing his duties; conserves his eyesight by reducing the amount and extent of exposure to the glare of the fire; protects the safety of the employees in the event of an explosion in the fire box, and incidentally might affect the safety of the train, after such an explosion, in that employees, being safe, might be able to bring the train under control. The automatic fire door would also serve to protect travelers upon highways crossed by the railroad at grade. For the fireman is required to aid the engineer in keeping a lookout, and with use of the old type swinging door this is not continuously possible. The glare of the flame when the door is open practically blinds the fireman for a time.

The purpose of the cab curtain is to protect engineers and firemen from the weather during the winter season. The Wisconsin act made it unlawful to use—

'between the fifteenth day of November and the first day of April of each year any locomotive engine not equipped with suitable and approved cab curtains. Such curtains shall be so constructed as to efficiently enclose the openings between the engine cab and the water tank or coal tender attached to such locomotive engine. The windows of the cab shall be properly and closely fitted and all openings for levers or pipes and all other openings whatsoever through which cold or drafts may bring discomfort to the occupants, shall be efficiently protected in such manner as may be required and according to plans approved by the Railroad Commission.'

Various types of cab curtains had been voluntrily installed by the carriers. But those installed by most of the carriers were such that snow entered the cabs in large quantities; that it saturated the clothing of engineers and firemen; and that the exposure caused great discomfort and danger of serious illness. The state Commission found that the plans for cab curtains submitted by the several carriers were, with one exception, not 'fuly suitable and effective for the protection of the health, comfort and welfare of the engine men,' and ordered particular requirements.

Each device was prescribed by the state primarily to promote the health and comfort of engineers and firemen. Each state requirement may be assumed to be a proper exercise of its police power, unless the measure violates the commerce clause. It may be assumed, also, that there is no physical conflict between the devices required by the state and those specifically prescribed by Congress or the Interstate Commerce Commission,2 and that the interference with commerce resulting from the state legislation would be incidental only. The intention of Congress to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
311 cases
  • Grogg v. Csx Transp., Inc., Cause No. 1:07-CV-222.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • September 14, 2009
    ...and the material of every part of the locomotive and tender and of all appurtenances." Napier [v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.] 272 U.S. [605] at 611, 47 S.Ct. 207 [71 L.Ed. 432 (1926)]. But "the term `parts and appurtenances' does not include every item of equipment that conceivably could be......
  • Gardner v. Allegheny County
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1955
    ... ... Aeronautics Commission ... The ... complaints further ... jurisdiction. See to the same effect Fineman v ... Cutler, 273 Pa. 189, ... Beverly Airways, ... 311 Mass. 628, 42 N.E.2d 575; Neiswonger v. Goodyear ... aforesaid Ohio case and Wisconsin case restrict the right of ... a landowner more ... concurring); see also Chicago & Southern Airlines v ... Waterman S. S. Corp., ... [67 S.Ct. 1026, 91 L.Ed. 1234] (1947); Napier v ... Atlantic Coast R. R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, ... ...
  • City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel and Club Emp. Union Local No. 568, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1964
    ... ... Wisconsin E. R ... Board, 315 U.S. 740, 62 S.Ct. 820, 86 ... these questions in the same manner. When an activity is ... arguably subject ... manifested.' Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... Co., 272 U.S ... ...
  • Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit, Michigan
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1960
    ...1149; Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. State of Washington, 270 U.S. 87, 46 S.Ct. 279, 70 L.Ed. 482; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 47 S.Ct. 207, 71 L.Ed. 432; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Porter, 273 U.S. 341, 47 S.Ct. 383, 71 L.Ed. 672; Service Storage & Transfer Co. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Reaffirms Federal Preemption Of State-Law Product Liability Claims Directed At Locomotive Equipment
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 8, 2012
    ...of locomotive equipment regulation preempted by the LIA, as that field was defined 85 years ago in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605 From 1947 to 1974, George Corson worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad as a welder and machinist repairing and mai......
  • Supreme Court Decision Alert - February 29, 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 5, 2012
    .... . are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury." In Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 613 (1926), the Supreme Court held that the LIA "was intended to occupy the field" of locomotive design, construction, and material. Today......
  • The Appellate Record Blog: Yes, [West] Virginia, There Is A Supremacy Clause
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 15, 2012
    ...Locomotive Inspection Act did not itself contain a preemption clause, but an 85-year-old precedent, Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U. S. 605 (1926) found that Congress intended to exclusively occupy the field of the design, the construction and the material of every part of the l......
8 books & journal articles
  • Pesticides, Water Quality, and the Public Trust Doctrine
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-10, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc., 411 U.S. 325, 3 ELR 20362 (1973)). 156. See, e.g. , Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 611 (1926) (“he intention of Congress to exclude states from exerting their police power must be clearly manifested.”); see also note 130 an......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...L.Ed.2d 258 (1999), 397 Naim v. Naim, 350 U.S. 891, 76 S.Ct. 151, 100 L.Ed. 784 (1956), 587 Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line, 272 U.S. 606, 47 S.Ct. 207, 71 L.Ed. 432 (1926), National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (......
  • The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption of State Water Quality Law
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • April 20, 2009
    ...Co., 237 U.S. 597, 601-04 (1915); New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 148 (1917); Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 611 (1926)); see also Ray , 435 U.S. at 157-58. 25. Buckman Co. , 531 U.S. at 348. 26. Ray , 435 U.S. at 158; see also Lorillard Tobacco Co.......
  • CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 49 No. 3, June 2019
    • June 22, 2019
    ...Co., 237 U.S. 597, 601-04 (1915); N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 149, 150, 153 (1917); Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 611 (1926)); see also Ray, 435 U.S. at (75) 33 U.S.C. [section] 1251(g) (2012). (76) Id.; see also 33 U.S.C. [section] 1251(a) (2012) (com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 49 C.F.R. § 230.5 Preemptive Effect
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 49. Transportation Subtitle B. Other Regulations Relating to Transportation Chapter II. Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation Part 230. Steam Locomotive Inspection and Maintenance Standards Subpart A. General
    • January 1, 2023
    ...- 49undefined20703 ) preempts all State laws or regulations concerning locomotive safety. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.,272 U.S. 605(1926). However, FRA believes Congress did not intend to preempt State laws or regulations concerning rail operations over which FRA does not exercise jur......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT