Spokane Inland Empire Railroad Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 136,136 |
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 668,241 U.S. 344,60 L.Ed. 1037 |
| Parties | SPOKANE & INLAND EMPIRE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Will G. Graves, F. H. Graves, and B. H. Kizer for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Underwood and Mr. John C. Brooke for defendant in error.
The United States brought this suit against the railroad company to recover penalties for fifteen alleged violations of the safety appliance act. The violations consisted in hauling in interstate commerce on October 23, 1911, twelve cars which were not provided with hand holds or grab irons at the ends, as required by the act, and three cars which were not equipped with automatic couplers. The answer admitted that at the time named all fifteen cars had been used in interstate commerce, and that three of them were not equipped with automatic couplers, but denied that the other twelve were not provided with hand holds or grab irons, as required by the act, and denied that it had in any respect violated the act, because all fifteen cars were used by the company upon its line of street railway, and were therefore expressly excepted from the operation of the act. A verdict and judgment against the company on all fifteen charges was affirmed by the court below.
We briefly state the material facts. The railroad company operated a street railway system in Spokane, Washington, and several interurban electric lines, one of which extended from Spokane to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, a distance of about 40 miles. Over this line passenger trains composed of two or more cars were operated, starting at a station near the center of Spokane and running for a mile and a quarter on the street railway tracks to the company's yards near the city limits, and thence over its private right of way to Coeur d'Alene. The road was standard gauge, with rails of standard weight, and the passenger trains were made up according to standard railroad rules, with markers to designate the trains, and were run on schedules and by train orders. Passengers traveled on tickets entitling them to ride to and from designated stations, at which regular stops were made, and express matter and baggage were carried on the passenger trains. The streetcar business was entirely separate from that done by the interurban line, the employees of the one having nothing whatever to do with the other, and although stops were made by interurban trains within the city limits, and while on the street railway tracks, they were made solely for the purpose of taking on and letting off passengers to or from stations outside the city. In addition to its passenger trains, the interurban line also operated freight trains, which, however, started from the company's yards and ran directly to Coeur d'Alene, and did not, therefore, enter upon the street railway tracks.
The fifteen cars here in question were passenger cars, and on the day named were used in passenger trains which were run from the station in Spokane to the city limits, and thence over the company's right of way to Coeur d'Alene. Twelve of them (those which it was charged were not equipped at the ends with grab irons or hand holds) were cars regularly used on the interurban lines, and were rounded at the ends and equipped with radial couplers to enable the trains to make sharp turns. As the swinging of these couplers from one side to the other across the ends of the cars would break off grab irons of the type ordinarily used on the ends of cars, they were not used. It was claimed, however, that the requirements of the safety appliance act with respect to hand holds or grab irons were in substance complied with by a different, and what was asserted to be an equivalent, appliance; that is, openings in the top of the buffer or sill extending across the ends of the cars, just above the couplers. To support this claim the company offered testimony of experienced railroad men to the effect 'that the hand holds or grab irons in the buffers or sills of such cars were sufficient to protect men who might be required to go between the cars in coupling or otherwise handling them, that they were sufficient to accomplish purposes intended to be accomplished by the provisions of the safety appliance act requiring hand holds or grab irons to be placed upon the ends of cars used in interstate commerce, and that they were better than those commonly used upon cars engaged in interstate commerce.' The United States objected to the introduction of the testimony, and it was excluded on the ground 'that it was not a question for expert testimony, but was a matter of common knowledge.' During the trial (at whose request it does not appear) the jury were taken to inspect the openings in some of the cars.
The other three cars were large street cars which were regularly used only on the street railway tracks, but which, because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ojeda v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...measures placed on a train were an inadequate substitute for the statutorily required handholds and grab-irons. 241 U.S. 344, 347-51, 36 S.Ct. 668, 60 L.Ed. 1037 (1916). The railroad argued that the jury should not be permitted to make a finding on that issue without expert testimony. Id. a......
-
Davies Warehouse Co. v. Brown
...at times on the fact that the federal program would be impaired if state law were to control." 8 Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. United States, 1916, 241 U.S. 344, 350, 36 S.Ct. 668, 60 L.Ed. 1037. 9 Among the businesses which have been designated by state statutes as public utilities and regulat......
-
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States Inc v. United States
...Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. ICC, 286 U.S. 299, 311-312, 52 S.Ct. 541, 545 (1932); see also Spokane & Inland R. Co. v. United States, 241 U.S. 344, 350, 36 S.Ct. 668, 671, 60 L.Ed. 1037, 76 L.Ed. 1115 (1916); United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 165, 10 L.Ed. 689 (1841) (Story, J.). Unle......
-
Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., 96
...See, e. g., Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & P. R. Co., 205 U.S. 1, 10, 27 S.Ct. 407, 51 L.Ed. 681; Spokane & Inland E. R. R. Co., v. U. S., 241 U.S. 344, 350, 36 S.Ct. 668, 60 L.Ed. 1037; Dollar Savings Bank v. U. S., 19 Wall. 227, 236, 22 L.Ed. 80; Detroit Edison Co. v. S. E. C., 6 Cir.,......
-
12 C.F.R. § 225.145 Limitations Established By the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 On the Activities and Growth of Nonbank Banks
...Maryland National Corporation, 73 Federal Reserve Bulletin 310, 313-314 (1987). Cf., Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad Co. v. United States,241 U.S. 344, (c) Activity limitation -(1) Scope of activity.(i) The first limitation established under section 4(f)(3) provides that a nonbank bank sha......
-
12 C.F.R. § 225.145 Limitations Established By the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 On the Activities and Growth of Nonbank Banks
...Maryland National Corporation, 73 Federal Reserve Bulletin 310, 313-314 (1987). Cf., Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad Co. v. United States,241 U.S. 344, (c) Activity limitation -(1) Scope of activity.(i) The first limitation established under section 4(f)(3) provides that a nonbank bank sha......