Louisville Jeffersonville Bridge Co v. United States
Decision Date | 21 April 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 312,312 |
Citation | 63 L.Ed. 757,249 U.S. 534,39 S.Ct. 355 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSONVILLE BRIDGE CO. v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Edward P. Humphrey, of Louisville, Ky., for Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co.
Mr. Solicitor General W. R. King, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certifies to this court for answer the question, whether Safety Appliance Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (Comp. St. §§ 8605-8612), Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (Comp. St. §§ 8613-8615), requires that 85 per cent. of the train brakes shall be coupled so as to be under engine control when making the transfer of 26 cars, in a movement which is described in the court's certificate.
The pertinent part of the original act approved March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 531), reads:
'It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving-wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system, or to run any train in such traffic * * * that has not a sufficient number of cars in it so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that purpose.' Comp. St. § 8605.
And the relevant part of the amendment, approved March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. 943) is:
'That the provisions and requirements hereof and of said acts relating to train brakes * * * shall be held to apply to all trains * * * used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce.' Comp. St. § 8613.
Section 2 of the amendment provides that when any train is operated with power or train brakes not less than 50 per cent. of the cars in such train shall have their brakes used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive, etc. Authority was given the Interstate Commerce Commission to increase the percentage of cars in any train which must have their brakes so used and operated, and in 1910 the commission increased it to 85 per cent.
The essential facts, somewhat condensed, from the statement of the Circuit Court of Appeals are:
The Bridge Company, a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, operates a large terminal yard at Louisville, Ky., which constitutes the joint terminal of the Big Four and the Chesapeake & Ohio Systems of railway. The yard is 1,800 feet in length, 700 feet in width, and consists of two main tracks, with from 15 to 25 approximately parallel tracks, which are connected with the main tracks by leads in the customary manner.
For the purposes of this proceeding the following movement of cars was adopted by the parties as typical. Twenty-six cars were assembled at the easterly end of the yard of the Bridge Company and were coupled together, but without any of the air brakes being connected, preparatory to their transfer westerly and delivery into the Illinois Central yard. The engine was at the easterly end of the cars, nearly 1,100 feet in length, which were pushed westerly the entire length of the large and necessarily busy yard. Part of this movement in the Bridge Company's yard, how much does not appear, was over a main line track, it was necessarily over many connections with other tracks on which several other engines and crews must have been working, habitually, and it was over four city streets at grade the crossing over the most westerly one, on account of the grade beyond, being made at a speed of 15 miles an hour. A short distance from the exit from the Bridge Company's yard the cars entered upon a track of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, used as a main line by both the Big Four and the Chesapeake & Ohio Companies, and after they had been pushed westerly on that track a distance of 1,100 feet, they were stopped on this main track. Next, reversing the movement, the engine,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hiatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...U.S. Code, secs. 1, 9; United States v. Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 Sup. Ct. 621, 59 L. Ed. 1019; Louisville & Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 538, 39 Sup. Ct. 355, 63 L. Ed. 757; United States v. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 429; Rose v. Railroad Co., 237 S.W. 854; St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co.......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett
... ... the states, and that at the time of his injuries the deceased ... was ... The ... Supreme Court of the United States has stated the reason for ... the enactment of the ... 553, 63 L.Ed. 1058, 6 ... A.L.R. 1537; Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v ... U.S., 249 U.S. 534, 39 ... ...
-
Satterlee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... 288; Mahutga v. Ry ... Co., 234 N.W. 474; Louisville, etc., Bridge Co. v ... United States, 249 U.S. 534, 63 ... ...
-
Hiatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
... ... statute. 45 U.S. Code, secs. 1, 9; United States v ... Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 S.Ct. 621, 9 L.Ed. 1019; ... Louisville & Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U.S ... 538, 39 S.Ct ... Co., 237 U.S. 402; Louisville v. Jeffersonville ... Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 534. (2) It was ... ...