Court Opinion

ID: 9827616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:42:09.335993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.807144
License: Public Domain

On Motion lor Rehearing.
Appellant states its inability to find any fact or facts showing any act of negligence on its part which created ,a necessity for ap-pellee placing his foot between the engine and the car in order to couple it. Appellee swore to the necessity, and appellant, in its brief, seeks to justify its failure to have the coupler arranged so that it could be coupled from the outside by the claim that appellee should have stopped the engine, made the adjustment, and then started it up again. The courts do not seem to agree with the contention of appellant; but it is held that the safety appliance act is violated if, “in order to open the knuckle when preparing the coupler for use, it was reasonably necessary for a man to place part of his body, his arm, or his leg in a hazardous position.” United States v. Railway (D. C.) 167 Fed. 695. If the, law was violated by appellant, as, in effect, is admitted, then, no matter how guilty of contributory negligence appellee may have been, appellant is liable. “The- statute concerning the coupling devices requires that the automatic coupler in use must be operative for each car as to the device of that particular car, so that an employé of a railroad company would not have to go to another car to make the uncoupling of the car in question.” Railway v. United States, 168 Fed. 1, 93 C. C. A. 393; U. S. v. Railway (D. C.) 162 Fed. 403. It is not contended that the locomotive had any device on the outside by which its coupler could be regulated, the only claim being that appellee should have stopped the engine in order to adjust the coupler of the car. The statute of the United States provides: “That no such employé who may. be injured or killed shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation of such person or corporation so operating such railroad of any • statute for the safety of em-ployés contributed to the injury or death of such employé.” The statute is too plain to require construction. If appellant did not have the coupler on its engine so arranged that it could be adjusted from the outside, it violated the law, and it does not matter what appellee may have done, if the defective coupler. contributed to his injury, and appellant is liable. Thornton, Safety Appliance Act, § 222; Johnson v. Railway, 178 Fed. 643, 102 C. C. A. 89; Mondou v. Railway, 223 U. S. 1, at page 49, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44. As said by the Supreme Court in Railway v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061: “If the railroad does, in point of fact, use cars which do not comply with the standard, it violates the plain prohibitions of the law, and there arises from that violation the liability to make compensation to one who is injured by it.”
By the act of 1908, Congress made the doctrine of comparative negligence applicable to all cases based on the negligence of the railroad and contributory negligence of the injured party, except in cases where the injury is inflicted or the death caused through a violation of the safety appliance act. In the last class of cases the defense of contributory negligence is wholly abolished. Richey, Fed. Employers’ Liability Act, p. 39; Horton v. Railroad, 157 N. C. 146, 72 S. E. 958. The same rule applies to assumed risk, and authorities on that subject are also authorities on the question of contributory negligence. Freeman v. Powell, 144 S. W. 1033; Colasurdo v. Central R. R. Co. (C. C.) 180 Fed. 832, and 192 Fed. 901, 113 C. C. A. 379.
It was not shown that there was a hand lever on the engine, and therefore appellee could not use it, and using the hand lever on the car to which,the engine was to be coupled, if there was such lever, would not have adjusted the defective coupler on the engine. It may have been contributory negligence for him to kick the defective knuckle, but that would not be a defense, bécause the defective coupling on the engine contributed to the injury.
Excerpts are made from what is denominated the “stenographer’s transcript,” but no such document has been filed in this court or will be filed in it This cause has been considered on the agreed statement of facts, approved by the trial judge, and the effect of such statement of facts cannot be impaired or destroyed by a document not filed among the papers, and which has no place among the papers. The statement of facts bears out the statement of this court that appellant was permitted to introduce all the testimony it desired on the subject of the *29coupler on the engine. The record fails to show that any testimony offered by appellant was withdrawn by the court from the jury. In the ninth assignment of error it is stated that “the undisputed evidence in this case shows that the coupling apparatus on the car had' been adjusted prior to the time of the accident, and it was, at the time of the accident, equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact.” There is no bill of exception as to any refusal to permit testimony as to the condition of the coupler on the engine. As a matter of fact, the engineer testified about the coupler on the engine, and the inspector about the coupler on the car. The inspector also stated that the engine and car should have coupled-automatically by impact, and, “if they do not couple with the automatic, they are not in proper condition.” And yet, in the face of that testimony by one of its own witnesses, appellant says: “There is not one line of evidence in the record which shows that' appellant did not have its cars properly equipped with couplers that would couple by impact; if there be such evidence, we have overlooked it.” The evidence of the inspector, taken in connection with the uncontroverted evidence that the car and engine did not couple by impact, shows that the couplers were not in proper condition. Appellee also swore that the coupler on the engine was not in proper condition. He fixed the coupler on the car, which was also out of order, and, in attempting to fix the coupler on the ear, he fell and was injured. The evidence is ample to show that the couplers were not in repair.
[10] The petition alleged “that the defendant was negligent in having and permitting the couplers on said engine and car to be so that they would not couple automatically, as required by law,” and that was sufficient to charge a failure to comply with the safety appliance act. A failure to have couplers that would couple automatically by impact was a violation of law, and was negligence per se.
The .Congress of the United States, and not the courts, have passed the law that “effectually ties the hands of every carrier in the state.” Our construction of the law may be a harsh one, but, as said by the Supreme Court in the Taylor Case, hereinbefore cited: “It is urged that this is a harsh construction. To this we reply that, if it be the true construction, its harshness is no concern of the courts. They have no responsibility for the justice or wisdom of legislation, and no duty except to enforce the law as it is written, unless it is clearly beyond the constitutional power of the lawmaking body.”
It is significant that the inspector examined the car to which the engine was to be coupled, but did not inspect the coupler that was responsible for the accident. He testified fully as to the condition of the car coupler, but not one word as to the engine. Although the conductor was told by appellee how he was hurt, he made no examination of the locomotive. He said that he left that for the inspector, and that employé was not in a position to inspect because the engine had been sent off. Appellant did not offer to show that the coupler on the engine could have been adjusted from the side, but virtually admits that it could not have been adjusted, except by stopping it. Pulling a lever on the car would not have fixed the defective coupler on the engine. It was the latter that was out of adjustment, and pulling the hand levers of all the ears in the train would not have adjusted the engine coupler. The evidence showed that it could not be adjusted except by a man going between it and the car.
Appellant quotes largely in its brief from cases which arose before the law as to contributory negligence was enacted. The cases cited by appellant in its motion have no bearing on this case. In Southern Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 205 Fed. 868, 124 C. C. A. 60, it is distinctly held that the accident occurred before the act of 1908. That act absolutely removes contributory negligence as a defense in cases of injuries arising from defective safety appliances provided for in the employers’ liability act.
[11] The petition alleged that appellant was engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce, and that it “used on said railroad in interstate commerce and intrastate commerce a certain engine and a certain ear; and it became and was the duty of plaintiff then and there to couple the aforesaid engine and car together.” The allegation was sufficient to show that appellant was engaged in interstate commerce.
[12] In connection with the claim that there was no allegation as to defect in the couplers that brought them within the scope of the statute, we copy the following from the petition: “Plaintiff avers that the coupler attached to said engine and car would not couple automatically by impact, as required by law; and, for the purpose of making said coupling, it became necessary for plaintiff to stand upon the footboard of said' engine, between said engine and car, and to shove the knuckle of the coupler on said engine so as to make the coupling as aforesaid.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.