United States v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 22 January 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 72-212 Civ. T.
• Citation: 368 F. Supp. 1079
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

368 F. Supp. 1079

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. No. 72-212 Civ. T.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Tampa Division.

January 22, 1973.

Ronald H. Watson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff.

Ronald D. McCall, W. Donald Cox, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney and Boggs, Tampa, Fla., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KRENTZMAN, District Judge.

This is a civil non-jury proceeding, and jurisdiction has been invoked pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts (45 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, as amended) and also pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337 and 1345. Jurisdiction is not contested.

This matter comes before this Court on a motion by plaintiff for judgment in the amount of $250.00 based upon stipulation of the parties. The evidentiary facts are not in dispute. The Court has conducted a full hearing, considered the Stipulation of Facts, arguments of counsel, and the authorities cited in the briefs along with the accompanying affidavits and exhibits.

Briefly, the pertinent facts are as follows: On July 8, 1969, defendant railroad hauled or used ACL 7131 hopper car in its Train 1st Fort Meade Switcher, consisting of 64 cars including the caboose, and hauled or drawn by SCL locomotive units 1133 and 1198, on its line of railroad, over a highway of interstate commerce, from Nichols, Florida, to Fort Meade, in said State. This ACL hopper car (7131) was equipped with an ABC-1 type air brake, which is an AB type air brake. That is, it must receive periodic attention according to the provisions of 49 C.F.R. 232.17(b) and the provisions of Rule 60(a) of the Interchange Rules of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) dated January, 1969. The governing regulation (49 C.F.R. 232.17(b)) incorporates by reference the provisions of Rule 60(a) of the above-described Interchange Rules.

Said Train 1st Fort Meade Switcher originated on said date at Nichols, Florida, and received an air brake inspection and test at that point. Before its departure, the train crew inspected each of the air brakes on each of the cars in that train. In railroad parlance, they walked the train, and all of the air brakes applied and released properly.

On that date, the train passed through Mulberry, Florida, on a through main line movement without stopping. Mulberry is a repair point on the line of the Seaboard Coast Line, at which COT&S work is performed. Mulberry is located about two miles southeast of Nichols. Car ACL 7131 was so hauled on July 8, 1969, to the Mobile Chemicals Fort Meade Mine, where it was placed for loading. It was not hauled to that point for the purposes of making repairs or of performing COT&S work on the car.

Plaintiff does not contend in this case that the air brakes on said car ACL 7131 on July 8, 1969, were inoperative or functioning improperly.

According to an Act of Congress, the parties in this case attempted in good faith to administratively settle this case pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 951-953) and the implementing Regulations (4 C.F.R. 101-105), but the parties were unable to negotiate a settlement thereunder because there was a genuine dispute of law concerning the interpretation of the applicable Regulation (49 C. F.R. 232.17(b)) and the provisions of Rule 60 of the Interchange Rules of the AAR which are incorporated by reference into the Regulation (49 C.F.R. 232.17(b)) by its provisions, although the parties were able to administratively settle some 177 claims arising under the provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts in that claims collection action or proceeding.

The pertinent regulation, Section 232.17(b), incorporates by reference Rule 60 of the Interchange Rules of the AAR. Rule 60 provides that freight air brake equipment must be cleaned, oiled, tested and stenciled (COT&S) after expiration of 48 months, as indicated by stenciled marking on the car. The rule also provides that the COT&S attention may be given after the expiration of 45 months when a car is on the repair track regardless of whether or not it requires other repairs. According to the regulation (Rule 60), in the case of empty cars, such cars should be shopped for periodic attention (COT&S) as soon as possible after the expiration of 45 months, in order to avoid shopping loaded cars after the expiration of 48 months.

The Government contends that it can now be determined, as a matter of law, that after the expiration of forty-eight (48) months, freight cars with AB type air brake equipment must be shopped for the periodic attention required by the Act (45 U.S.C. § 9, as amended) and the applicable Regulation (49 C.F.R. 232.17(b)), which incorporates by reference the provisions of Rule 60 of the AAR's Interchange Rules. If the car is then hauled after the expiration of the forty-eight (48) months, and if the car has not received the required attention (COT&S), it is in violation of the authorizing Statute (45 U.S.C. § 9, as amended) and the pertinent Regulation (49 C.F.R. 232.17(b)).

According to the Government, if the freight car, after the expiration of 48 months, is out on the line of the carrier, and if, at that point, the carrier does not have the facilities to make the periodic repairs or provide the required periodic attention (COT&S), the Court should find, as a matter of law, that the carrier may legally haul the car to the nearest available point where such periodic attention could be provided. However, in this case, the defendant has stipulated that it was not hauling the car for the purpose of making any periodic repairs or providing periodic attention, but it was merely hauling the car for the purpose of loading cargo.

The controversy in this case involves the interpretation of the aforementioned statute and the regulations. The plaintiff further contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

According to the defendant, this case should be submitted to a jury for its determination. The defendant further contends that it is a question of reasonableness.

At the hearing which was held on November 28, 1972, defendant then raised the issue of the constitutionality of the Statute and the regulations. Leave of Court was then requested to make such a plea, and it was granted. The plaintiff interposed no objection. The Court would have entertained it in any event. According to the defendant, the position of the plaintiff is simply that, in order to comply with the Act and the pertinent regulations, a railroad must test prior to the expiration of the 48 months. The railroad goes on to state that such is not the requirement of the Statute or the regulations, and that such an interpretation would render the Statute invalid.

Plaintiff submits that the requirements imposed by the Safety Appliance Acts and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto are absolute, and nothing less than literal compliance with their terms will suffice. This contention of the plaintiff is supported by the authorities. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559, 31 S.Ct. 612, 55 L.Ed. 582 (1911); O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., 338 U.S. 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-Texas R.R., 273 F.2d 474 (10th Cir. 1959); United States v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. R., 397 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1968). Furthermore, the Safety Appliance Acts and the regulations adopted pursuant to the Acts must be liberally construed to effectuate their beneficent purpose. United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 56 S.Ct. 421, 80 L.Ed. 567 (1936); Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western R. R., 317 U.S. 481, 63 S.Ct. 347, 87 L.Ed. 411 (1943); United States v. Seaboard Air Line R. R., 361 U.S. 78, 80 S.Ct. 12, 4 L.Ed.2d 25 (1959); Carbon County Ry. v. United States, 309 F. 2d 938 (10th Cir. 1962); United States v. Southern Ry., 341 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1965); United States v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R., 397 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1968).

We will now deal with the contentions of the defendant. In the first place, it contends that this matter should be submitted to a jury for its determination as to the question of reasonableness of the regulation. However, the material facts are not in dispute. The defendant in this case admits moving the car, i. e., hauling or using the car on the date in question over its line of railroad, on a highway of interstate commerce, in the State of Florida. It further admits that the required attention (COT&S) had not been provided. Therefore, the question presented to this Court involves the interpretation of the regulation and is not a question of fact. It deals with a matter of law.

An analogous situation has been called to our attention. In United States v. Carbon County Ry., 199 F.Supp. 726 (D.Utah 1961), aff'd 309 F.2d 938 (10th Cir. 1962), Judge Christenson initially submitted the case to the jury over the Government's objections. On page 730 of 199 F.Supp., Judge Christenson stated as follows:

On reflection I am convinced that in submitting the special interrogatories to the jury, and in overruling the government's objections to certain evidence, I embraced a theory inconsistent with the nature, purpose and requirement of the regulation and involved factual standards not helpful in its interpretation. The question is not whether a reasonable person would feel satisfied with a `determination,' or whether a determination of the functioning of the brakes could be made with reasonable assurance. The question is what test is required by the regulation. The answer of the jury that the application of the brakes could be determined with reasonable assurance or reasonable certainty is not helpful

...