Didinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5351.,5351. |
| Parties | DIDINGER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
J. E. Mathews, of Cleveland, Ohio (Bernsteen & Bernsteen and Paul R. Brown, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
T. M. Kirby, of Cleveland, Ohio (Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and G. H. P. Lacey, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, District Judge.
This is an action brought under section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act (45 U. S. C. § 11 45 USCA § 11), wherein plaintiff seeks to predicate liability upon the use of a freight car equipped with an inefficient hand brake. A verdict for the defendant was directed at the close of the opening statement by plaintiff's counsel to the jury.
This section imposes an absolute and unqualified duty upon interstate railroads to equip and maintain hand brakes in an efficient condition. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hooven, 297 F. 919 (C. C. A. 6); Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Howell, 6 F.(2d) 784 (C. C. A. 2). Negligence is immaterial (Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 43, 36 S. Ct. 482, 60 L. Ed. 874; Spokane & Inland R. R. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497, 505, 36 S. Ct. 683, 60 L. Ed. 1125), and it is unnecessary to show that the car was, at the time, being used in, or the employee engaged in, interstate commerce (Southern Ry. Co. v. U. S., 222 U. S. 20, 27, 32 S. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72).
There are two recognized methods of showing the inefficiency of hand brake equipment. Evidence may be adduced to establish some particular defect, or the same inefficiency may be established by showing a failure to function, when operated with due care, in the normal, natural, and usual manner. Altman v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., 18 F.(2d) 405 (C. C. A. 5). The plaintiff adopted the latter method of proof. By the opening statement he offered to show by evidence that, in a switching operation, he was required to firmly set the brake upon a freight car; that in doing so he placed his foot against the dog, and it "went in" (the ratchet), and he heard it click; seeing that the brake held after it was set, and preparatory to leaving the car, that he placed his hand lightly upon the top wheel, when the brake suddenly "gave away," "swung around the other way," and, as he tried to hold it, threw him from the car; and that the brake was set "in accordance with the proper and usual manner of setting the brake, and it gave way and did not hold." In view of the frequently repeated assertion that the brake had been properly set and that the dog or pawl had firmly engaged one of the teeth of the ratchet, it cannot be assumed that this was a case of so-called "hair-trigger" setting, where the dog lodges insecurely upon the outer extremity of a ratchet tooth.
Assuming the proper setting of the brake, the fact that it did not hold demonstrates its inefficiency. As said in Philadelphia & R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Chicago, RI & PR Co.
...O. Ry. Co., 1933, 352 Ill. 561, 186 N.E. 185, certiorari denied, 1933, 290 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 93, 78 L.Ed. 583; Didinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 1930, 39 F.2d 798, 799. In the instant case the evidence discloses both the nature of the defect and the fact that the brake failed to fun......
-
Klem v. Consol. Rail Corp..
...a failure to function, when operated with due care, in the normal, natural, and usual manner.” Myers at 485; Didinger v. Pennsylvania RR. Co. (C.A.6, 1930), 39 F.2d 798, 799. {¶ 46} The court in Myers held: “Proof of an actual break or visible defect in a coupling appliance is not a prerequ......
-
Aly v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis
...F.2d 552; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Howell, 6 F.2d 784; Wolf v. Pavne, 294 Mo. 170; McAllister v. Ry. Co., 25 S.W.2d 795; Didinger v. Railroad Co., 39 F.2d 798. (b) Boiler Inspection Act imposes upon the carrier an absolute duty to have its engines, tenders and appurtenances in proper c......
-
Hardin v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...Cooley, supra; Railroad Co. v. James, 163 U.S. 485, 41 L.Ed. 236; Railroad Co. v. Hughes, supra; Railroad Co. v. Hahn, supra; Didinger v. Railroad Co., 39 F.2d 798; Railroad Co. v. Howell, 6 F.2d 784; Railroad Co. v. Eisenhart, 280 F. 271; New York L. O. Co. v. Pussey, 211 F. 627; Koonse v.......