United States v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11237.,11237. |
| Citation | 156 F.2d 457 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Theron L. Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leo Meltzer, Attorney, Dept. of Justice of Washington, D. C., and Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal. (James O. Tolbert, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant.
J. C. Gibson, and Charles L. Ewing, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, DENMAN, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from a judgment holding appellee free from liability in a civil action brought under the Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-16.
The complaint contained four causes of action and sought judgment in the amount of $400. Each count related to the hauling or use of a freight car which was admittedly defective within the meaning of the Act. The cars had been placed by other carriers on the interchange tracks near Stockton, California, on April 4, 6, and 7, 1944. An inspector, employed jointly by appellee and the other carriers, examined the cars on the interchange tracks, and in each instance discovered that the defective car was coupled between nondefective cars in such fashion that the nondefective cars could not be moved or used without the movement of the defective cars. The latter were thereupon tagged as being in bad order and were hauled by appellee to its switching yard, approximately a mile distant, where they were separated from the nondefective cars. Some hours later they were shoved back on the interchange tracks. No effort was made to repair them either on the interchange tracks or in the switching yard.
The court found that appellee had refused the defective cars in interchange, and that the method employed in disconnecting and returning them was the most practical under operating conditions prevailing. It concluded that appellee was under no duty to repair the defective cars, and that the movement incidental to disconnecting them from the nondefective cars and returning them to the delivering carriers did not constitute a violation of the Act.
Prior to the amendment of April 14, 1910, 36 Stat. 299, the statute imposed upon interstate carriers an absolute duty to use cars complying with standards therein set and any movement of a car having defective safety appliances subjected the carrier to the statutory penalties. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 28 S.Ct. 616, 52 L.Ed. 1061. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559, 575, 31 S.Ct. 612, 55 L.Ed. 582. The amendment relaxed the rigidity of the rule to the extent only of permitting the hauling without penalty of cars which became defective while in use by the carrier on its line to the nearest available point where the car could be repaired, if such movement were necessary to make repairs. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 249 F. 805. The exceptive proviso incorporated by the amendment is shown on the margin.1
The facts do not bring the movements here involved within the terms of the exceptive proviso. In United States v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 9 Cir., 293 F. 657, 659, we held that only two defenses are permissible under the statute, these being either a denial of the hauling of the defective car, or an affirmative showing bringing the movement within the language of the statutory exception. And in Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 226 F. 683, 686, the court stated that the relief granted by the amendment "is limited by its express terms and manifest intent, and there is no warrant for its further extension." To similar effect, see Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 249 F. 805, at page 807. The exception granted by the amendment must be given a strict construction to preserve the integrity of the Act, Denver...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Chicago, RI & PR Co.
...Act, the trial court held that there was no violation of the Act. On appeal the judgment was reversed. United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 9 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 457. The Court held that the handling of the car by the defendant did constitute a violation of the Act. The Court sta......
-
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. United States
...v. United States, 4 Cir., 226 F. 683, 686; Donegan v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry. Co., 2 Cir., 165 F. 869, 871; United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 9 Cir., 156 F.2d 457, 458. 6 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39, 36 S.Ct. 482, 60 L.Ed. 874; Carter v. Atlanta & St. A. B.......
-
United States v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
...384, 70 S.Ct. 200, 94 L.Ed. 187 (1949); Southern Pacific v. United States, 23 F.2d 61 (8th Cir. 1927); United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 156 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1946); Alabama Great Southern R.R. v. United States, 233 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1956); United States v. Missouri-Kansas......
-
United States v. AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD CO.
...related orders issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This contention is supported by the authorities. United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 156 F.2d 457 (C.C.A. 9); United States v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 273 F.2d 474 (C.A. 10); United States v. Alton and South......