ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 244 U. S. 336 (1917)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 244 U. S. 336
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/244/336/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/244/336/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 244 U.S. 336 (1917)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Railway Company v. United States
No. 267
Argued May 4, 1917
Decided June 4, 1917
244 U.S. 336
Syllabus
The Hours of Service Act of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 1415, is remedial, passed to protect both public and employees from the dangers arising from overwork in railway employment, and should be construed, in effectuation of this purpose, as requiring the carrier to do all reasonably within its power to confine the hours of service within the limits stated.
It was the intention of the proviso in § 3 not to relieve the carrier from a diligent effort to avoid exceeding the limits of service which the act specifies, but only to afford relief in cases where service beyond those limits is necessarily entailed by the causes mentioned in the proviso.
If, as the result of delay due to unavoidable accident, a train crew will not be able to take the train to the terminal of their normal run without serving beyond the limit prescribed by the act, it becomes the carrier's duty to prevent such excessive service by substituting a fresh crew whenever, in the exercise of all reasonable diligence, it is able to do so.
220 F.7d 8 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.