San Pedro, L.A. & S.L.R. Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 27 March 1914
• Docket Number: 3955.
• Parties: SAN PEDRO, L.A. & S.L.R. CO. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

213 F. 326

SAN PEDRO, L.A. & S.L.R. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3955.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 27, 1914

Dana T Smith, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff in error.

Philip J. Doherty, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Washington, D.C. (Hiram E. Booth, U.S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief) for the United States.

Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and VAN VALKENBURGH District judge.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

The question in this case is whether a railroad company violates the hours of service act (Act March 4, 1907, c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1321)), by requiring a fireman to watch his engine and keep the fires alive, until the coming of a relief crew, after 16 continuous hours of duty in the movement of a train in interstate commerce. Two instances substantially alike were charged by the government. In each case after 16 hours of service the train was tied up at a station short of its destination and all the crew but the fireman were relieved from duty. The fireman was required to watch his engine and keep it alive until another crew came and took charge. It was stipulated that while there he was not required or permitted 'to do anything in connection with the actual movement of the train from' that station and that it was not intended he should have any responsibility for the movement if occasion arose. In one case the excess service charged was 8 1/2 hours; in the other, 2 hours and 14 minutes, during part of which the engine and train were pulled on their way by another engine with another crew, the fireman still continuing to watch and fire. In other words, one fireman was on duty of one kind or another 24 1/2 consecutive hours, and the other, likewise, 18 hours and 14 minutes. The railroad company contended that the time beyond 16 hours was not employed in or in connection with the movement of a train and therefore should not be counted. The trial court held with the government.

When the definitions of the first section of the statute are read into the prohibitions of the second, the law applicable here is as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier by railroad, engaged in interstate commerce, to require or permit any person in its service actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train in such commerce to be or remain on duty for a longer period than 16 consecutive hours, and whenever such person shall have been continuously on duty for 16 hours he shall be relieved and not required or permitted again to go on duty until he has had at least ten consecutive hours off duty; and no such employe who has been on duty 16 hours in the aggregate in any 24-hour period shall be required or permitted to continue or again go on duty without having had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty.

In this legislation Congress had in view the many serious railroad accidents caused by the unfitness for duty of men, engaged in or having to do with the movements of trains, who had endured excessive periods of continuous, unbroken service without intervals for rest. The remedy adopted was by limiting the maximum of the hours of service and the minimum for the intervals between. It was thought futile to attempt to control the employes in their use of their off time therefore, as being more practical and efficient, the command was laid upon and confined to those who gave them employment in their regular occupations. The statute is highly remedial and should be liberally construed to effect its...