Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/237/402/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:57:37+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 237 › United States v. Erie R. Co.
Railroad yards belonging to the same railroad but several miles apart, such as those of the Erie Railroad at Jersey City, Weehawken, and Bergen, although important accessories of the same terminal, are not actually one yard, and trains moving between them are not engaged merely in switching operations, but are engaged in transportation within the purview of the air brake provisions of the Safety Appliance Act.
The facts, which involve the construction and application of the Safety Appliance Acts, are stated in the opinion.
several alleged violations of the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196, as amended and supplemented by the Acts of April 1, 1896, 29 Stat. 85, c. 87; March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976, and April 14, 1910, 36 Stat. 298, c. 160.
The declaration contained twenty-six counts. The first seven were based upon the use of that number of cars having defective couplers, the eighth upon the use of a car without grab-irons or hand-holds at one end, and the remaining eighteen upon the operation of that number of transfer trains in which less than eighty-five percent of the cars were controlled by air brakes. All of these acts were charged as having occurred in January and February, 1911, on the defendant's railroad while it was being used and operated in moving interstate traffic. The plea interposed was the general issue.
The case was tried twice. The first trial resulted in a judgment for the government which was reversed by the circuit court of appeals, 197 F. 287. At the second trial,m there was a directed verdict for the defendant, and the judgment thereon was affirmed by that court. 212 F. 853. This writ of error challenges the judgment of affirmance.
run according to fixed schedules, but at irregular intervals under the orders of yard masters and according to block signals. Their speed is from seven to eighteen miles an hour, and they move great numbers of cars in each direction every day. All go through the tunnel, which is admitted to be very dark, and upon each trip they pass over several switches leading to other tracks, traverse part of the same line over which fifteen regular through and local freight trains are moved each day, and cross at grade tracks which are in daily use by approximately thirty-five passenger trains.
The cars named in the first eight counts of the declaration were defective in the particulars charged, and while thus defective were hauled -- six from Jersey City to Bergen and two from Weehawken to Bergen -- in transfer trains along with other cars in commercial use. All of the defects were discovered in the yards from which the cars were moved, and those in six of the cars could have been readily repaired in those yards by the local force of car repairers, consisting of seven men at Jersey City and five at Weehawken. The defects in two of the cars were serious, and as to them Bergen may have been the nearest available point for making the necessary repairs. These cars were hauled by means of chains instead of drawbars, and there was no claim that they contained livestock or perishable freight.
of the defendant. No cars were switched out of or into these trains while they were on the way from one yard to the other.
The circuit court of appeals rested its judgment upon the conclusions (a) that the three yards are not separate or distinct, but with the connecting tracks constitute a single and extensive yard; (b) that the movements of the transfer trains from Jersey City and Weehawken to Bergen and vice versa were mere switching operations, and therefore not within the air brake provision in the statute, and (c) that it was permissible under the statute to haul the cars with defective equipment in the circumstances disclosed.
We cannot assent to the view that the yards at Jersey City, Weehawken, and Bergen are but a single yard. They doubtless are important accessories to the defendant's eastern terminal, but that does not make them one yard. They lie from two to three and one-half miles apart, are not so linked together that cars may be moved from one to another with the freedom which is usual and essential in intra-yard movements, and are in actual practice treated as separate yards.
air brake provision. But it is otherwise with the various movements in railroad yards whereby cars are assembled and coupled into outgoing trains, and whereby incoming trains which have completed their run are broken up. These are not train movements, but mere switching operations, and so are not within the air brake provision. The other provisions calling for automatic couplers and grab-irons are of broader application, and embrace switching operations as well as train movements, for both involve a hauling or using of cars. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1; Schlemmer v. Buffalo Ry., 205 U. S. 1, s.c. 220 U. S. 220 U.S. 590; St. Louis, I. Mtn. &c. Railway v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; Chi., B. & Q. Ry. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559; Delk v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., id., 220 U. S. 580; Southern Railway v. United States, 222 U. S. 20; Chicago &c. Ry. v. King, id., 222 U. S. 222; Southern Railway v. Crockett, 234 U. S. 725; Minn. & St. Paul Ry. v. Popplar, ante, 237 U. S. 369.
"be held to apply to all trains." We therefore conclude and hold that it embraced these transfer trains. Its applicability to this class of trains was considered and sustained in Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 198 F. 637; United States v. Grand Trunk Ry., 203 F. 775; United States v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 211 F. 220, and La Mere v. Railway Transfer Co., 125 Minn. 159.
The hauling of the cars with defective equipment was clearly in contravention of the statute. While & 4 of the Act of 1910 permits such cars to be hauled, without liability for the statutory penalty, from the place where the defects are discovered to the nearest available point for making repairs, it distinctly excludes from this permission all cars which can be repaired at the place where they are found to be defective, and also declares that nothing therein shall be construed to permit the hauling of defective cars "by means of chains instead of drawbars" in association with other cars in commercial use, unless the defective cars "contain livestock or perishable freight." Six of the cars that were hauled while their equipment was defective could have been readily repaired at the place where the defects were discovered, which was before the hauling began. The remaining two were hauled by means of chains instead of drawbars in association with other cars in commercial use, and it is not claimed that they contained livestock or perishable freight.
It follows that the district court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, and the circuit court of appeals erred in sustaining that ruling. The judgments of both courts must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.