United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 14 July 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 848.,848. |
Citation | 21 F. Supp. 916 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. FORT WORTH & DENVER CITY RY. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Clyde O. Eastus, U. S. Atty., and Frank B. Potter, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., and M. C. List, Atty. for the Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Safety, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Thompson & Barwise, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Morgan, Culton, Morgan & Britain, of Amarillo, Tex., for defendant.
This is an action to recover a penalty brought under the Safety Appliance Act in which the government alleged that the defendant, which was engaged in interstate commerce, operated over its railroad, a highway of interstate commerce, a locomotive engine designated as a Browning steam locomotive crane, which was not equipped with a power driving wheel brake.
The parties waived a jury, and agreed that the cause be submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts. From the agreed statement it appears that the defendant operated a line of railroad extending from Pampa, Tex., to Childress, Tex., and that in operating this line it was engaged in interstate commerce. On the date the alleged violation of the Safety Appliance Act occurred the defendant was engaged in construction work upon this line of railroad at a point three-fourths of a mile north of Meldavis on such line and at another point about two and one-half miles from Meldavis. In conveying the materials needed in this construction work from the switch at Meldavis to the construction work a locomotive crane had attached to it a car used for carrying fuel and water needed in the operation of the crane and two flat cars loaded with heavy boulders, which it moved from the switch at Meldavis to the construction work. The crane would then unload the heavy boulders from the flat cars at the point where they were needed in the construction work, return the flat cars to the switch at Meldavis, pick up other cars loaded with boulders, and move them to the construction work.
The locomotive crane consisted of the arm of the crane, cables, and pulleys and a cab which contained the steam engine and appliances for controlling the equipment, all mounted on a short flat car at the ends of which were couplers. It was propelled by power furnished by the steam engine, and was not equipped with a power driving wheel brake.
The defendant is charged with violating section 1 of the Safety Appliance Act; section 1 of title 45 of the U.S.Code, 45 U.S. C.A. § 1, which reads: As amended by section 8 of title 45 of the U.S. Code, 45 U.S.C.A. § 8, which reads:
The defendant contends that under the facts it is not guilty of violating the provisions of the Safety Appliance Act because the locomotive crane is not a locomotive within the meaning of the act; because section 8 of title 45 of the U.S.Code, 45 U.S.C. A. § 8, does not by the use of the term "train brakes" include "power driving wheel brakes," so that the Safety Appliance Act does not require that a locomotive not used in "moving interstate traffic" be equipped with power driving wheel brakes, and the equipment in question here was not used in "moving interstate traffic"; because the operations in question were not train movements, and therefore the provisions of the Safety Appliance Act relating to power driving wheel brakes do not apply.
I believe these are the only questions presented by this record, and, if the defendant is correct in any one of them, it should have judgment in its favor.
In speaking of the Safety Appliance Act, the United States Supreme Court in New York Central Railroad Company v. United States, 265 U.S. 41, 44 S.Ct. 436, 437, 68 L. Ed. 892, speaking through Justice Butler, said: "The acts of Congress and orders of the Commission above referred to should be liberally construed, to relieve trainmen of the labor and danger involved in the use of hand brakes to control the speed of trains, and to promote the safety of trains and of persons and property thereon."
Jarvis v. Hitch, 161 Ind. 217, 67 N.E. 1057, 1060, and Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Ohio St. 215, 97 N.E. 417, 419, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 49, Ann.Cas.1913A, 945, cited by both sides, are not in point, but the cases do furnish a definition of "locomotive" which I think is correct.
In Jarvis v. Hitch, supra, the Supreme Court of Indiana, in determining whether a pile driver mounted upon a flat car, which was self-propelling, was a locomotive under the statutes of Indiana, said: "By the term `locomotive engine' used in said clause, the Legislature only intended an engine constructed and used for traction purposes on a railroad track." The court based this definition upon an English case, Murphy v. Wilson, 48 Law Times, N.S., 788, 52 Law Journal Q. B. D. 524, 525, from which the court quoted, saying: " and it was therefore held not to be a locomotive. * * *
In Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Benson, supra, the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santillanes v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
...that the vehicle is a locomotive; the vehicle must also perform locomotive function. For instance, in U.S. v. Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co., 21 F.Supp. 916 (N.D. Tex. 1937), the court considered whether defendant railroad violated the FSAA by operating a steam locomotive crane on its tra......
-
Penn Cent. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...862, fn. 4. Cf. Mazzucola v. Pennsylvania R.R., 281 F.2d 267, 268--269, 91 A.L.R.2d 518 (3d Cir.); United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City Ry., 21 F.Supp. 916, 917--919 (N.D.Tex.). Cf. also United States v. Quincy R.R., 338 F.2d 430, 432--434 (9th 2. The railroads also argue that, even if......
-
Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Haynes
...a locomotive, it is considered a locomotive, regardless of what other use might be made of the vehicle. United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City R.R., 21 F.Supp. 916, 918 (N.D.Tex.1937). In Baltimore & Ohio Ry. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325, 329, 77 S.Ct. 842, 845, 1 L.Ed.2d 862 (1957), the Sup......
-
Collins v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
...9. In Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 715 (10th Cir.1987), the Court cited to United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co., 21 F.Supp. 916, 918-19 (N.D.Tex. 1937), in which it was determined that a crane used to unload boulders at a railroad construction site was a ......