Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Howell

• Decision Date: 20 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 212.,212.
• Citation: 6 F.2d 784
• Parties: LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. v. HOWELL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

6 F.2d 784 (1925)

LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. v. HOWELL.

No. 212.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 20, 1925.

Allan McCulloh, of New York City (Clifton P. Williamson and H. S. Ogden, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

John C. Robinson, of New York City (Morris A. Wainger, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

Defendant in error, employed as a brakeman by the plaintiff in error, was engaged in interstate commerce on May 13, 1920, at Hartz yard, at or near Ashmore, in the state of Pennsylvania. His crew was to haul out a train of 75 cars, which were put together, coupled, and apparently gathered for movement. His duty required him to inspect each car, to learn if it was properly coupled, with air hose attached and brakes released. It was then midnight, and he proceeded dutifully with this work, using a hand lantern. When he got to about the thirty-third car from the rear, he found a brake tightly applied. This indicated that the hand brake was set on the wheels. The brake was set or released by turning the familiar hand wheel located on the top of the usual shaft extending up the front of the car. This was a box car, with an iron ladder located on the front end, which led to the brake platform. In order to release the brake, it was necessary for the defendant in error to climb up the ladder to the brake platform. He did so, carrying a stick in his right hand, and his lantern swung over his arm. When he reached a position at the top of the ladder, where he could step upon the brake platform, he took hold of the grabiron on the roof of the car with his left hand, placed the brake stick on the roof of the car, and reached over his left hand to take hold of the rim of the brake wheel on the side nearest to him, in a position which, if any pull was exerted on it, would pull against the brake pawl, then inserted in the teeth of the ratchet. As he did so, the brake shaft and ratchet wheel raised up, overriding and releasing the brake pawl, which slipped under the ratchet wheel. This caused the brake to suddenly and rapidly reverse and spin the wheel around, and threw the defendant in error backward. He landed on a steel gondola cola car, and received severe and permanent injuries, for which he has had a judgment below.

The proximate cause of the release of the brake in the manner described is established to be the fact that the pawl had a tendency to go under the ratchet and be released, and would do so by any jar. This was due to the fact that the ratchet pawl was loose, and would slip under the ratchet, because the key which holds the ratchet wheel in position was loose, and this permitted the ratchet wheel to rise on the shaft, thus permitting the passage of the pawl under the ratchet, between the ratchet wheel and the trunnion. The Safety Appliance Act (Comp. St. § 8618) provides that "on and after July first, nineteen hundred and eleven, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier * * * to haul, or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car subject to the provisions of this act not equipped with appliances. * * * All cars must be equipped with secure sill steps and efficient hand brakes."

The obligation was absolute and mandatory upon the plaintiff in error to comply with the requirements of this act, both in equipping and maintaining with efficient hand brakes. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 28 S. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061; Atlantic City Ry. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 59, 37 S. Ct. 69, 61 L. Ed. 150; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Gotschall, 242 U. S. 66, 37 S. Ct. 598, 61 L. Ed. 995; Reap v. Hines (C. C. A.) 273 F. 88. That the brake was defective is abundantly established,...