Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1936
• Docket Number: No. 296.,296.
• Citation: 83 F.2d 738
• Parties: GERAGHTY v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

83 F.2d 738 (1936)

GERAGHTY v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

No. 296.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 18, 1936.

Alexander & Green, of New York City (Clifton P. Williamson and H. S. Ogden, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. O'Neill, of New York City (John V. Higgins, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

This action is for damages due to negligent acts resulting in the death of appellee's intestate. Appellant was charged with violations of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-59), and the Federal Safety Appliance Acts 1893, § 2, and 1903, § 1 (45 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 8).

The accident to the decedent occurred while he was engaged in handling cars upon the appellant's railroad tracks in the yards of an industrial plant, at Perth Amboy, N. J., where the appellant's engine and crew, including the intestate, were shifting five cars loaded with interstate shipments of lead, delivered to the yards the day previously. At the time the cars were so shifted, two had been weighed and unloaded. The unloaded cars were in the plant's converter building and the other three had been held on a storage track. The appellee's intestate was a freight conductor in charge of the crew and had orders to remove the two empty cars from the converter building and to replace them with the three loaded cars. In proceeding to carry out these orders, the switch engine hauled the three cars to a point on the track near the converter building, and then uncoupled and backed into the converter track to get the two unloaded cars out of the way. There were several flat cars owned by the industrial company between the engine and these cars. One of the flat cars was coupled to the two unloaded cars. It was necessary to couple a string of four other flat cars to this car to pull out the two unloaded cars. Intestate gave signals to the engineer for this coupling and stepped between the cars as they were about to meet. They came together and made a coupling at the first impact, but the intestate was so badly crushed in this operation that he died as a result of the injuries then received. It was necessary for him to go between the cars to adjust the couplers and he was crushed because the couplers were defective. The evidence supports a finding of such defect.

We have held on a prior appeal, upon proof substantially the same as in this present record, that the appellee was not engaged in interstate commerce and not entitled to the benefit of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Geraghty v. Lehigh V. R. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 300. The court below, however, held that in hauling cars with defective couplers there was a violation of the Safety Appliance Act and that the appellee could recover irrespective of his engagement at the time, or that of the appellant, in interstate commerce.

In Tipton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 56 S.Ct. 715, 716, 80 L.Ed. ___, decided by the Supreme Court on April 27, 1936, a railroad switchman, while engaged in intrastate commerce, was injured in California due to a defective coupling apparatus upon a freight car in violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. A demurrer to the complaint, which failed to allege employment in interstate commerce, was sustained and the Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) affirmed in 78 F.(2d) 450. California has a Workmen's Compensation Act which did not except from its terms but embraced injuries to employees circumstanced as was the intestate. In affirming the judgment below, the Supreme Court said: "The Safety Appliance Acts impose an absolute duty upon an employer and prescribe penal sanctions for breach. The earliest, that of 1893, affected only cars which were being used in interstate commerce. By the Act of 1903, the duty was extended to all cars used upon any railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce. The absolute duty imposed necessarily supersedes the common-law duty of the employer. But, unlike the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 U.S. C.A. §§ 51-59), which gives a right of action for negligence, the Safety Appliance Acts leave the nature and the incidents of the remedy to the law of the states. The Safety Appliance Acts modify the enforcement, by civil action, of the employee's common-law right in only one aspect; namely, by withdrawing the defense of assumption of risk. They do not touch the common or statut...