Chicago, B. & Q. Railway Co. v. United States,
220 U.S. 559 (1911)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, B. & Q. Railway Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559 (1911)

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. United States

No. 329

Argued March 9, 1911

Decided May 15, 1911

220 U.S. 559


Under the Safety Appliance Acts of March 2, 1893, c.196, 27 Stat. 531, April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 8, and March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943, there is imposed an absolute duty on the carrier, and the penalty cannot be escaped by exercise of reasonable care.

This Court, in St. Louis, I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, considered and determined the scope and effect of the Safety Appliance Acts and the degree of care required by the carrier, and the question is not open to further discussion, as this Court should not disturb a construction which has been widely accepted and acted upon by the courts.

For this Court to give a construction to an act of Congress contrary to one previously given would cause uncertainty, if not mischief, in the administration of law in federal courts, and, having placed an interpretation on the Safety Appliance Acts, this Court will adhere thereto until Congress, by amendment, changes the rule announced in St. Louis, I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Taylor, supra.

An action for penalties under the Safety Appliance Acts is a civil, and not a criminal one, and the enforcement of such penalties is not governed by considerations controlling prosecution of criminal offenses.

Congress has unquestioned power to declare an offense and to exclude the elements of knowledge and due diligence from the inquiry as to its commission.

170 F. 556 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of the Safety Appliance Acts and the duties and liabilities of carriers to equip their cars with safety appliances, are stated in the opinion.

Page 220 U. S. 567

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.