Swinson v. Chicago, St Ry Co

• Decision Date: 11 March 1935
• Docket Number: No. 383,383
• Citation: 96 A.L.R. 1136,79 L.Ed. 1041,294 U.S. 529,55 S.Ct. 517
• Parties: SWINSON v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. *
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

294 U.S. 529

55 S.Ct. 517

79 L.Ed. 1041

SWINSON

v CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.^*

No. 383.

Argued Feb. 6, 7, 1935.

Decided March 11, 1935.

Messrs. Ernest A. Michel and Tom Davis, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.

Mr. Warren Newcome, of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Swinson, a freight brakeman in the employ of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59) in the federal District Court for Minnesota. The accident occurred while he was releasing a hand brake at the end of a tank car. The brake was tightly set. To release it required the application of considerable force to the brake wheel. In order to exert such force, Swinson placed his left foot on the running board, his right foot on a grabiron or handhold, which consisted of a round iron bar bent at the ends, attached horizontally to the under side of the running board, and extending beyond it a few inches. As he exerted foot pressure on the grabiron, the plank to which it was attached split, and one of the bolts securing the grabiron pulled through. As a result, he lost his balance, fell in front of the moving car, and was seriously injured. The parties were engaged, and the car was used, in interstate commerce.

Swinson claimed that the railway was liable, independently of negligence on its part, because it had failed to provide the 'secure grab irons or handholds' required by the Safety Appliance Act.¹ The railway contended that it was not liable because the grabiron had been used by Swinson for a purpose for which it was not intended; since the purpose of Congress in requiring 'secure grab irons or handholds' was to supply an appliance to grasp with the hands, not to provide a foot brace or support to secure leverage in releasing a hand brake. Although there was evidence that the grabiron was inadequate and defective even for its so-called 'intended use' of being grasped by the hands, and also evidence that the use which Swinson had made of the grabiron was customary, the trial court sustained the railway's contention and directed a verdict for it. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entered upon the verdict, 72 F.(2d) 649. Certiorari was granted, 293 U.S. 546, 55 S.Ct. 123, 79 L.Ed. —-, because the precise question, which is of importance, had not been dediced by this Court.

The Safety Appliance Act (45 USCA § 1 et seq.) has been liberally construed so as to give a right of recovery for every injury the proximate cause of which was a failure to comply with a requirement of the act. Thus, although the act was intended primarily for the protection of railroad employees, it was held in Fairport, Painesville & Eastern R. Co. v. Meredith, 292 U.S. 589, 54 S.Ct. 826, 78 L.Ed. 1446, that a traveler on the highway could recover for injury resulting from failure to maintain in usable condition the power brake required by the...