Schaaf v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1982
• Docket Number: Docket No. 52284
• Citation: 113 Mich.App. 544,317 N.W.2d 679
• Parties: Charles SCHAAF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 679

317 N.W.2d 679

113 Mich.App. 544

Charles SCHAAF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 52284.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 4, 1981.

Decided Feb. 19, 1982.

Released for Publication April 6, 1982.

Otis, Peters, Becker & Pietsch, P. C. by Sheldon Otis and Mark Granzotto, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Smith & Brooker, P. C. by A. T. Lippert, Jr., and Mona C. Doyle, Saginaw, for defendant-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P. J., T. M. BURNS and CORDEN ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right an April 11, 1980, jury verdict of no cause of action in this case brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51 et seq., and the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 2. We reverse.

Plaintiff was employed as a yard conductor for the defendant railway company. This position required him to couple and uncouple boxcars. On October 25, 1976, plaintiff was instructed to couple an engine and two cabooses with another series of railroad cars.

Railroad cars will not couple unless their drawbars are properly aligned and at least one knuckle on the end of a drawbar is open. A drawbar can be adjusted into alignment manually by pushing or pulling on the bar from the end of the railroad car.

On the date in question plaintiff initially was unable to couple the series of railroad cars with the engine and caboose because the drawbars were not aligned. Plaintiff signaled the engineer to pull the engine and cabooses away from the other cars and then went between the cars and attempted to move one of the drawbars into alignment. He was in the process of shoving on the bar when he felt his back snap and he suffered severe injury.

In October, 1978, plaintiff filed suit. He maintained that the railroad was strictly liable for his injuries because it had violated the automatic coupling provisions of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 2. That act provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars."

Plaintiff argued at trial that the failure of the railroad cars to couple upon impact was a per se violation of the Safety Appliance Act and that the jury should be so instructed. Defendant countered that the jury should be instructed that no violation of this act could be found unless both drawbars were properly aligned before the attempt at coupling took place. After listening to extensive argument by the parties, the trial judge adopted defendant's argument and instructed the jury accordingly:

"Now, let's talk about what the real duty is with respect to the railroad and automatic couplers, and I ask you to pay particular attention to this:

"To comply with the law just stated, a coupler must be one which operated in the manner intended, performs its function in all the ordinary conditions under which couplings or uncouplings are made, second, the duty of the defendant was to equip the car in question with a coupler which when operated in the manner intended would work efficiently by raising the coupling lever. If you should find--this is 3--if you should find the plaintiff in the performance of his duties aligned the draw bar and the knuckle or knuckles were in the proper position for coupling and that the coupler failed to function properly thereafter, then you must find a violation of the Federal Appliance Safety Act.

"The mere failure of cars to couple automatically on impact is not sufficient to constitute a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, unless you find that such failure, if any, occurred after the coupler had been properly set and aligned for coupling and the cars were handled in the proper manner for impact coupling.

"I'm going to read that again to you. The mere failure of cars to couple automatically on impact is not sufficient to constitute a violation of the Safety Appliance Act unless you find that such failure, if any, occurred after the coupler had been properly set and aligned for coupling and that the cars were handled...