Sherry v. Baltimore & OR Co.

Citation30 F.2d 487
Decision Date07 February 1929
Docket NumberNo. 5088.,5088.
PartiesSHERRY v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

John Ruffalo, of Youngstown, Ohio (Ruffalo & Wall, of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Union C. De Ford, of Youngstown, Ohio (Harrington, De Ford, Huxley & Smith, of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.

HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge.

Action under the Federal Safety Appliance Act (45 USCA §§ 1-46). Plaintiff was a car inspector employed by defendant in and about the railway yard of defendant in the city of Youngstown. It was his duty to inspect "bad order" cars, to make such repairs as could be made on the ground, or to order a car to the repair shops for that purpose.

The car in question had been placed upon one of the ladder tracks in the general yard, cut from the train, and reported to plaintiff as having a defective brake. In his capacity as inspector and repairman, plaintiff went to the car, found that it had a badly bent brake staff, and, in order to determine whether the brake was operative notwithstanding this defect, mounted to the top of the car and attempted to apply the brake. Thereupon the brake staff broke, throwing him from the car and causing the injuries complained of. Upon trial a verdict was directed for the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff (as an inspector and repairman) did not come within the provisions and the benefits of the Safety Appliance Act, and that the car was not in use or being hauled, so as to make such act applicable.

The Safety Appliance Act has been the subject of judicial consideration and construction so frequently during recent years that it is not deemed necessary to now exhaustively reconsider the established precedents. Some of those most pertinent to the present issue are stated in the note.1

The general rules deducible from these decisions may be briefly stated. The remedy is statutory, and liability, where the statute attaches, is absolute and independent of negligence. There must, of course, be a breach of one of the express provisions of the act, and causal connection between this failure of defendant to comply with the requirements of the act and the injury to the plaintiff. Where the failure to comply with the requirements of the act is not a proximate cause of injury, but only a remote cause, or one creating an "incidental condition or situation in which the accident, otherwise caused, results in such injury," the employee cannot claim the protection of the act.

Thus the initial question for determination in every such case is whether it falls within the purview of the statute. Section 2 of the Act of April 14, 1910, c. 160, 36 St. 298, 45 U. S. C. § 11 (45 USCA § 11), provided that all cars must be equipped with "efficient hand brakes." Where any car shall have been so properly equipped, but such equipment shall have become defective while such car was being used by the carrier upon its line of railroad, section 4 of the act (45 U. S. C. § 13 45 USCA § 13) permits such car to be hauled to the nearest available point where repairs may be made without incurring the statutory penalties; but it is further provided that such movement or hauling shall be at the sole risk of the carrier, and that nothing in said section shall be construed to relieve such carrier from liability in any remedial action for death or injury of any railroad employee caused to such employee by reason of or in connection with the movement or hauling of such car with defective equipment. The absolute liability above referred to is implied from these statutory provisions, and it is to be noted that the inhibited act on the part of the railroad company in each is "the hauling or permitting to be hauled or used" on its line any car with the required equipment in defective condition. This constitutes the "violation of the act" we have above referred to in statement of the general principles deduced from precedent. It has accordingly been held by this court that the act has no application to equipment withdrawn from service and undergoing minor repairs preparatory to early return to service. B. & O. R. Co. v. Hooven (C. C. A.) 297 F. 919. Cf. McCalmont v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (C. C. A.) 283 F. 736.

In the instant case the defective car was not being hauled or used by the defendant, except in that it was stored temporarily upon one of the ladder tracks. It had been withdrawn from use for the very purpose of undergoing repair. No movement was immediately contemplated, and no action of setting the brakes was necessary, save as incident to inspection and repair. In Chicago G. W. R. R. Co. v. Schendel, cited supra in the note, the car was being placed upon a siding for the purpose of withdrawing it from use, but the Supreme Court specifically states that the use, movement, or hauling of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rush v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1947
    ...276 U.S. 27, 48 S.Ct. 241; Brady v. Wabash, 329 Mo. 1123, 49 S.W.2d 24; Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Hoover, 297 F. 919; Cherry v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 30 F.2d 487; Docheney v. Pa. R. Co., 60 F.2d 808; v. Lake Terminal R. Co., 42 F.2d 357; New York C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Kelly, 70 F.2d ......
  • Meierotto v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1947
    ... ... Flack v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 285 Mo. 28 224 ... S.W. 415; New York, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Kelly, 70 ... F.2d 548; Sherry v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 30 F.2d ... 487; Pryor v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Co., 170 Okla. 158, ... 39 P.2d 563; Fryer v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., ... ...
  • Brady v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1937
    ... ... condition of the car in question. Brady v. Railroad ... Co., 49 S.W.2d 24; United States v. Railroad ... Co., 287 F. 780; Baltimore & O. S.W. Railroad Co. v ... United States, 242 F. 420; Doyle v. Railroad ... Co., 31 S.W.2d 1010. (c) The mere fact that plaintiff ... was a ... 847] repair for the purpose for which it is intended and for ... the use to which it is assigned?" We cited to the same ... effect Sherry v. B. & O. Railroad Co. (C. C. A.), 30 ... F.2d 487, where a car inspector in the defendant's employ ... was injured while inspecting a car which ... ...
  • Netzer v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1953
    ...770; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Hooven, 6 Cir., 297 F. 919; Lyle v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 221; Sherry v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 6 Cir., 30 F.2d 487, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 555, 50 S.Ct. 16, 74 L.Ed. 611; New York, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Kelly, 7 Cir., 70 F.2d 548, cer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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