United States v. Duluth, S.S. & A. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1921
• Citation: 281 F. 347
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. DULUTH, S.S. & A. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

281 F. 347

UNITED STATES v. DULUTH, S.S. & A. RY. CO.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan.

April 18, 1921

Myron H. Walker, of Grand Rapids, Mich., U.S. Atty.

A. E Miller, of Marquette, Mich., for defendant.

SESSIONS District Judge.

In the declaration in this case it is alleged that in four specific instances, set forth in the four counts of the declaration the defendant failed to comply with the act of Congress and the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission relating to safety appliances which are required to be placed upon freight cars.

The statute was enacted mainly for the protection of railway train employees, and the law requires that certain appliances shall be placed on each car which is operated by such a carrier as the Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company. Among other requirements is one that every car shall be equipped with automatic coupling apparatus, so that it will not be necessary for an employee or trainman to go between the ends of the cars to couple or to uncouple them. It appears from the undisputed evidence in this case that the car which is described in the first count of the declaration was not so equipped; in other words, that, at the time the car was hauled and used upon this railway line, the coupling apparatus was out of order and inoperative, and the car could not be coupled or uncoupled without going between the ends of the cars. Therefore the government is entitled to recover the statutory penalty.

Counts 2 and 3 of the declaration relate to the position or location of the drawbars upon two cars therein described. The drawbar again has to do with the coupling and uncoupling of cars, and the Interstate Commerce Commission has made a regulation that the center of the drawbar shall be not less than 31 1/2 inches and not more than 34 1/2 inches above the rail. It appears that the drawbar of the car which is described in the second count of the declaration was not 31 1/2 inches above the rail. The caboose, which is described in the third count of the declaration, has a drawbar which was located more than 34 1/2 inches, the maximum distance above the rail; so that as to each of those counts, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the statutory penalty.

The fourth count rests upon a somewhat different basis, although it is founded upon the same statute and the same order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In that count the defendant is charged with a failure to place ladders...