Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-05-15
Methods for Preventing Acct
dents Shall Be Maintained
in Good Condition At All
Times Says Supreme Court,
MERE DILIGENCE Is
NOT ENOUGH SAYS LAW
BY Odd Coincidence a Number
of Cases Testing This Stat
ute Arose at Same Time and
Decision is Far Sweeping.



Washington. u c.. MAY H. --nla
roads coming within the ie,.as ~ tl,,
safety appliance tlts ~ congress IN
1898 aud 1908 are uud,. an ahsomtu
duty to keep IN repair automatic roiiD.
icrs ana other appliance prescribed
b! Law. aud not merely u du,y to .N.
crcisc reasonable diligence ~ repair.
sng such. was the decison TO-DAY OF
the supreme court of me Tinted
States
BS an odd coincidence. u nmicr
ui vital questions conc 'thinv tho
scope OF the safety appli tuce acts @.
congress came before tht supreme
courj of the taitcd Sia'cs abuu. ths
sam" lime and we're hedid togCtacr
One of these arose In tue suit o'
i VI Dclk. u brakeman an the 81
Louis ana san Francisco Railroad
company. Tor injuries suffered white
attempting 10 manipulate :. dcf""tiyo
,"upl" ui ear ON = switch in Mem
ph:s, lena. the United States cir.
Cuit coui of appeals Tor To, six Il cir.
,u, "hsiil decide as1iu' u h uu
thr mound that White th' "a lrOad
was under an absolh" duty 80 ,IIip
cars with aulomat' ,1upiers anl on.
g. appliances rcquiic bv the safety
appliance act. yet B., was Uaiy urd,r
thr common low duty to exercise re.
sodablc ellis ace vhna Il came IL
repairing tn appliances Dclk had
conicnd"d that thr acts changal tnc
common law duty so as ,o make the
/ rail- Dads absolutely liable for not r..
/ pairing appliances reguired b, the
/ -tatul :. as well as FOR MOI cuuippiug
! cars with the appliances
The direct reverse of this holding
/ vas ANNOUNCED By the United States
I circuit court OF appeals Tor the Eighth
I circuit. when The United states sought
I 10 rccoyor irom the Chicago. Burlins-
ton n Quincy RAILWAY company Si1D
for each of four alleged violations of
I the acts. There II was held that the
/ railway company was under an abso-
! lutte obligation tu Keep he safety
/ appliances With which their ears mus
/ bo equipped In repair. The railroad
! claimed that thu court held them Ia.
/ bic, fwiihstanding the company did
not know ita ears were ont oi ropnir
/ and had no intention 90 violate The
I law
Another question was passed upon
/ hV the United States district court of
/ Colorado when II held that the cole.
ado ana Northwestern Railroad coiii.
/ patS, narrow gauge railroad en-
! tirrly within BOULDER county. Colo.
ana said to be using locomotives and
/ ears equipped with the old link and
I pin couplcrs, was lifblc to the gov.
crnment for violation Of the law. IN
So doug tn" court held that u was
( noj necessary to ordar 10 bring =
connecting carrier within he safety
appliance acts for II 90 have an a.
rangomcnt lor continuous trnnspor.
tHtion ur shipment with the preceding
carrier The courts had aIways held
hat such had been necessary 10 hrin.
q carrier within the Interstate com.
mere, aCf nf 1877
The United suites district court iur
NuJih,rn Nlahama went even = step
tWthcr u held thai the United
states was eattlcd 10 lcnalty from
fhr southern RAILWAY compau, to-
an allcr Il violation oi the safety an
rlarcc law In a case whore ahh-
Wcnt originating aul ending within
fhr state of Aahama was carried N
% ear not properly equipped ru,
court holl that this WAS iolatiOl
OF lie law because tho can was used
sometimes for interstate COWuorC zee.
and therefore was an lnstruu"uJalltv
ot interstate commerce