Southern Ry Co v. Lunsford
| Decision Date | 02 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 399,399 |
| Citation | 80 L.Ed. 740,56 S.Ct. 504,297 U.S. 398 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. LUNSFORD. * |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. G. E. Maddox, of Rome, Ga., and H. O'B. Cooper, Sidney S. Alderman, and S. R. Prince, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Reuben R. Arnold and B. P. Gambrell, both of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Respondent's intestate, J. M. Cox, driver of the engine on petitioner's fast train from Birmingham to Atlanta, lost his life when it overturned. As the train moved forty miles per hour over a six-degree curve to the left, something, apparently a stone, turned the wheels of the front truck to the right and off the rails. After bumping over the crossties for seven-tenths of a mile, they struck a switch and the upset followed.
The front or boiler end of the locomotive found support through a rigidly attached center casting rounded to fit, some three or four inches, into another casting made fast to the forward truck. This adjustment permitted passage around curves. The parts were held together by the weight of the locomotive. If the wheels of the truck left the rails, the connection would be broken; the locomotive would rest on the driving wheels and short chains attached to it would pull the truck along. Compressed air, carried in a hose pipe from the pump, controlled all brakes. Pressure released them; when withdrawn, they automatically applied.
A mechanism, known as 'Wright's Little Watchman,' fastened beneath the locomotive frame, carried a valve closing an entrance into the air line actuated by a lever or trigger. A pull on this would open the valve, let out air, and thus set the brakes. The lever was connected with the forward truck; if its wheels left the track and fell five inches or more, a downward pull was expected.
Newly constructed locmotives carry no Watchman; they are not in common use. Petitioner buys and applies them; has experimented with them for seven years; nearly all of its passenger locomotives carry them. The device is not regarded as an essential or integral part. The carrier's general superintendent testified without contradiction: Both witnesses who spoke to the point asserted that it was in an experimental stage; was being tried out with the hope of securing good results; sometimes it had proved effective, sometimes it disappointed. Notwithstanding use during seven years, it remained experimental.
Respondent brought an action for damages in a state court and relied upon wo grounds: (1) Failure properly to maintain the track; (2) failure to keep the Watchman in proper condition wherefore it failed to function and arrest the train. The court presented the cause to the jury upon both theories. Judgment for respondent after a favorable verdict was affirmed by the appellate court. Discussion of the first ground is unnecessary; the judgment must be reversed because of error in the charge relative to the second.
The Boiler Inspection Act of June 7, 1924, c. 355, § 2, 43 Stat. 659, U.S.C.A., title 45, § 23, provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless paid loco- motive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the same are put, that the same may be employed in the active service of such carrier without unnecessary peril to life or limb, and unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof have been inspected from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grogg v. Csx Transp., Inc., Cause No. 1:07-CV-222.
...on a locomotive." Mosco v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 817 F.2d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.1987). See also, Southern Ry. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398, 402, 56 S.Ct. 504, 80 L.Ed. 740 (1936) ("[M]ere experimental devices which do not increase the peril, but prove helpful in an emergency, are not [w......
-
Urie v. Thompson
...v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., supra, 317 U.S. at page 485, 63 S.Ct. at pages 350, 351, 87 L.Ed. 411; Southern R. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398, 401, 56 S.Ct. 504, 506, 80 L.Ed. 740; cf. Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 528—529, 45 S.Ct. 169, 172, 173, 69 L.Ed. This conclusion......
-
Kernan v. American Dredging Company the Arthur Herron In the Matter of the Petition for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability
...S.Ct. 626, 60 L.Ed. 1110; Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U.S. 66, 37 S.Ct. 598, 61 L.Ed. 995; Southern R. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398, 56 S.Ct. 504, 80 L.Ed. 740; Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 317 U.S. 481, 63 S.Ct. 347, 87 L.Ed. 411. Second, was the defendant's liabi......
-
Mickelson v. Montana Rail Link, Inc.
...proper condition, and safe to operate in active service without unnecessary peril to life or limb. Southern Railway Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398, 401, 56 S.Ct. 504, 506, 80 L.Ed. 740 (1936). Herold, 761 F.2d at 1245 (citations omitted). In other words, the Eighth Circuit did not distinguis......