Erie R. Co. v. Russell

• Decision Date: 02 December 1910
• Docket Number: 62.
• Citation: 183 F. 722
• Parties: ERIE R. CO. v. RUSSELL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

183 F. 722

ERIE R. CO. v. RUSSELL.

No. 62.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 2, 1910

Writ of error to review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for injuries resulting in the death of the plaintiff's intestate, Harry Russell, while employed by the defendant railroad company. There was evidence in the case sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the following facts which are especially relevant to the questions considered in the opinion:

The defendant railroad company is engaged in interstate commerce and owns a railroad extending from Port Jervis, N.Y., to Newburgh, N.Y., and also running into other states. Port Jervis is two or three miles east of the state line between New York and Pennsylvania. The defendant operates a local freight train between Newburgh and Port Jervis which, when running westerly, carries freight to stations on the road and picks up freight going to all points west, including points in other states. On the easterly trip western freight is carried to local points, and local freight is picked up for eastern points. On the afternoon of June 21, 1907, the car in question in this case was brought into Port Jervis in this train billed to the repair shops there. It had a defective coupler, the knuckle being gone. It was empty, and had been picked up at Greycourt, a station between Port Jervis and Newburgh. This train on said day carried freight going west of Port Jervis and to different states, and one of the cars bore the initials of the Boston & Maine Railroad. There was another car in the train which was also in a crippled condition. The train, including the crippled cars, was left standing on a switch in the Port Jervis freight yard. Russell, the plaintiff's intestate, was one of the night switching crew in the yard. On this afternoon this crew had begun work drilling out and switching the cars from the different trains which had come into the yard from east and west. Before supper three cars had been placed on the No. 6 switch in the yard and left standing there. This switch had a slight grade. After supper the switching crew continued work and after some time ran the car in question attached to other cars upon said No. 6 switch. The intention of the switching crew was to repair the defective coupler and after repairing it to couple the train containing this car to the three cars aforesaid which had previously been left upon the switch. In backing up the train this car came in contact with the other three cars but was subsequently pulled away from them some five or six feet. The switching crew then started to look for a knuckle with which to repair the defective coupler. Knuckles were kept in various places in the yard, and the switchmen were accustomed to replace those found missing. Russell, the plaintiff's intestate, was the first to find one, and he went in between the cars and attempted to adjust it in the coupling apparatus, but the pin would not fit and one of the other men went to look for another pin. Russell was holding the knuckle in place with his back to said three standing cars when, without any apparent cause, they moved silently down and caught and crushed him, inflicting the injuries from which he died. The car in question was taken the next day on the easterly trip of said local freight train and hauled to Goshen, N.Y.

F. B Jennings, for plaintiff in error.

George A. Clement, for defendant in error.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

NOYES Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The first question in the case is whether the acts of the defendant constituted a violation of the federal safety appliance act (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), as amended March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1143), the relevant sections of which are printed in the footnote. ^[1]

The first phase of this question is whether the car with the defective coupler was, at the time of the accident, in use within the meaning of the amended act. It is pointed out that the car was not being hauled at the time of the accident, but was standing upon a switch track for the insertion of the knuckle in the coupling apparatus, and it is contended that it was not then being used within the contemplation of the statute. We think upon the authority of Johnson v Southern Pacific Co., 196 U.S. 1, 25 Sup.Ct. 158, 49 L.Ed. 363, that this contention is not well founded. The car with the defective coupler was not withdrawn from use. Although billed to the repair shop it was not sent there, nor was it sent to any place used especially for making repairs. The insertion of the knuckle was a simple matter. The car was stopped only temporarily, and it was intended to couple it to the other cars as soon as repaired. These facts seem clearly to distinguish this case from those cases cited in the defendant's brief where accidents occurred when cars had been sent to repair shops or placed upon dead tracks used for repair purposes.

The second phase of the question of the application of the act is whether the car at the time of the accident was employed in interstate commerce. The car itself does not appear to have been used in any interstate business at the time in question. It was hauled empty from a New York point to Port Jervis in the same state, and the...