United States v. Southern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 04 February 1965
• Docket Number: No. 9515.,9515.
• Citation: 341 F.2d 669
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

341 F.2d 669 (1965)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 9515.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 6, 1964.

Decided February 4, 1965.

Wm. Medford, U. S. Atty. (Thomas H. O'Leary, Attorney, Department of Justice, and Henry L. Hilzinger, Attorney, Interstate Commerce Commission, on brief), for appellant.

Gerhard A. Gesell, Washington, D. C. (William T. Joyner, Raleigh, N. C., Wiley F. Mitchell, Jr., W. Graham Claytor, Jr., and Ernest T. Kaufmann, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and EUGENE A. GORDON, District Judge.

HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.

We are concerned with the application of the automatic coupling requirement of the Safety Appliance Act of 1893 to two hopper cars which the Southern Railway has undertaken to transform into one by securely joining them. The District Court found the Act's requirement inapplicable to the "A" ends of the united twins. It did so on motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand, for we think some further factual inquiry essential.

In recent years, the Southern Railway has displayed, refreshingly, a capacity for innovation in the design and construction of freight cars and in rate making to produce lower rates for shippers in large volume.¹ In 1963, it sought to meet its need for hopper cars of larger volume by converting two old hopper cars into one "articulated" car. This it did by effecting a relatively permanent union of the couplers and hoses at the "A" end² of the cars.

Some of the parts of the automatic coupler at the "A" end of each of the two cars were removed. Removed also was the lever by which the couplers had earlier been operable from the side of the car. The two couplers were then united in a locked position. To further assure maintenance of the union, a short, heavy metal part was inserted in each coupler and its top was welded to the coupler housing. So long as that part remained in place, the coupler's parts could not be moved to an unlocked position.

The old air hoses and angle cocks were also removed. They were replaced by one length of hose without provision of means for shutting off or regulating the flow of air between the two units.

A relatively permanent union of the two old units was thus effected. Some work in a shop would be required to disengage them. A yard brakeman could not do it.

The numbers of the old cars were retired and a single number assigned the combined car. Viewed from the side, the unit on the left has painted upon it in large letters the word "SOUTHERN," while the one on the right displays in numerals of the same size as the letters the number assigned to the combination.

The Southern treats the combination as a single car. It does so in applying its shipping rates and in charging per diem rates to off-line carriers and demurrage to shippers. Switching lists carry it as one car, and a single switching ticket is issued for it. It is inventoried as a single car, and The Southern Weighing and Inspection Bureau has approved the railroad's practice of weighing the combination as one car and computing weighing charges on that basis.

Section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act of 1893³ prohibits the use in interstate commerce of any car "not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars." The Congress, however, did not attempt to formulate a definition of a car.

Under these circumstances, Southern contends it has created a single "articulated" car fully meeting the requirements of the Act since the "B" ends of the old units, the outer ends of the combination, are equipped with automatic couplers operable as required by the statute. Even if the combination is not one car within the meaning of the statute, Southern contends that the Act's requirements are inapplicable to their united ends since yard employees have no occasion to uncouple the units and could not do it if they tried.

There is such a thing as an articulated car. That term is defined in the Car Builder's Cyclopedia⁴ as "a car consisting of two or more full size units free to swivel, the inner ends being carried on a common center truck." In such a car the center truck performs the function of couplers, but it serves other offices, too. Most importantly for our purposes, there is no opening between the units into which a mistaken brakeman might be lured. Here, in contrast, the fused couplers serve no other office than they did before their modification. Superficially, their appearance has not been changed. Though Southern has created a unified car for many of its purposes, it is neither clear nor unequivocal that it is a single car within the meaning of § 2 of the Act.

Whether this is one car within the meaning of the statute should be determined in the light of the apparent congressional purpose. The answer is not to be found in the fact that, for many purposes, the combination is a single car or is treated as if it were. Theoretical abstractions are of no help. Our conclusion must be founded upon practical considerations. The first question posed by Southern, therefore, is substantially resolved into its second contention.

The statute ought not to be given a construction foreign to its purpose. Mechanically applied in unrelated situations, it could be made to serve no other end than a hindrance of progress. Surely, introduction and use of better equipment and...