Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the state court to review a
judgment in an action under the Employers' Liability Act in which
the construction of the Safety Appliance Acts was involved,
denied.
By the Employers' Liability Act, the defense of assumption of
risk remains as at common law, save in those cases mentioned in § 4
where the violation by the carrier of any statute enacted for the
safety of employees contributed to the accident.
This Court has heretofore construed the letter of the Safety
Appliance Act in the light of its spirit and purpose as indicated
by the title no less than by the enacting clauses, and that guiding
principle should be adhered to.
Although the original Safety Appliance Act may not have applied
to vehicles other than freight cars, the amendment of 1903 so
broadened its scope as to make its provisions, including those
respecting
Page 234 U. S. 726
height of draw-bars, applicable to locomotive other than those
that are excepted in terms.
By the amendment of 1903 to the Safety Appliance Act, the
standard height of draw-bar was made applicable to all railroad
vehicles used upon any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and
to all other vehicles, including locomotives, used in connection
with them so far as the respective safety devices and standards are
capable of being installed upon the respective vehicles.
Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. United States, 196 F. 882,
approved.
The facts, which involve the construction and application of the
provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts and of the Employers'
Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.
Page 234 U. S. 727
MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Crockett, the defendant in error, brought this action in the
Circuit Court of Knox County, Tennessee, to recover damages for
personal injuries sustained by him while in the employ of the
railway company. The action was based upon the Federal Employers'
Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (chap. 149, 35 Stat. 65,
U.S.Comp.Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322), in connection with the safety
appliance act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat.
Page 234 U. S. 728
531, and the amendments of 1896 and 1903, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85; c.
976, 32 Stat. 943. He recovered a judgment in the trial court which
was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. A petition for a writ
of certiorari being presented to the Supreme Court of Tennessee,
that court dismissed the petition and affirmed the judgment.
The facts, so far as material, are as follows: defendant was an
interstate carrier by railroad, and plaintiff was in its employ as
a switchman, and was engaged in a movement of interstate commerce
at the time he was injured. The date of the occurrence was October
15, 1910. In making up a freight train, a switch engine, with a
freight car attached, was being moved down grade towards where
other freight ears were standing upon the track when the single car
became uncoupled from the engine, and, being propelled by gravity
towards the standing cars, came into contact with them. Plaintiff,
being upon the car which thus became uncoupled, was by the impact
thrown against the brake and injured. He insisted that the car
became detached from the engine because of the defective condition
of the track at that point, in conjunction with the insufficient
height of the drawbar on the engine. There was evidence tending to
show that the ground upon which the track rested was wet and
marshy, and the cross-ties broken and insufficient, so that the
track was uneven and rough, and that, as a result, the engine and
the car attached to it were made to alternately rise and fall at
the ends where they were coupled together, and tending further to
show that the drawbar upon the engine, which was used in coupling
the car to it, was not more than 30 inches high, measured from the
track to the center of the drawbar; that it was too low to engage
properly with the couplers of ordinary freight cars, and that,
because of the resulting inadequacy of the coupling, together with
the unevenness of the track, the car in question became detached.
There was, however, evidence
Page 234 U. S. 729
tending to show that plaintiff knew of the defective condition
of the track and of the engine; that he had passed over the same
track frequently with the same engine, and that, prior, to the
occurrence in question, cars had, as he knew, repeatedly become
detached from the engine because of the conditions mentioned. It
was either found or assumed by the state courts that defendant's
railway was of standard gauge, and that the standard height of
drawbars for freight cars ranged between a maximum of 34 1/2 inches
and a minimum of 31 1/2 inches.
See Resolution of
Interstate Commerce Commission, June 6, 1893 (Ann.Rep. I.C.C. 1893,
pp. 74, 263), construed in
St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v.
Taylor, 210 U. S. 281,
210 U. S. 289;
see also Ann.Rep. I.C.C. 1896, p. 94. It should be noted
that the alleged cause of action arose October 15, 1910, after the
enactment of the amendment of that year to the Safety Appliance
Act, but before the taking effect of the Commission's order
respecting drawbars, made pursuant to the new law. This order,
while dated October 10, 1910, became effective on December 31
following.
Defendant requested the trial court to direct a verdict in its
favor upon the ground that plaintiff admittedly knew of the
defects, and therefore assumed the risk. The court refused the
motion, and likewise refused the request of defendant for an
instruction to the jury in the following terms:
"If the jury should find from the evidence that the drawbar of
the engine was defective by being too low, or the track defective,
and that this caused the engine to become detached from the cars,
and this caused the plaintiff's injury, still, if you should
further find that these defective conditions had existed prior to
that time with the knowledge of the plaintiff, and plaintiff knew
before he went to work that the defect existed at that time, and
that, by reason thereof, the engine had been accustomed to become
uncoupled, and he appreciated the danger, then the court charges
you that, under those facts, the plaintiff
Page 234 U. S. 730
could not recover, and your verdict should be in favor of the
defendant."
The contentions of defendant, overruled by each of the state
courts and here renewed, are that, by the true interpretation of
the Employers' Liability Act, the common law rule respecting the
assumption of risk was not abolished except in cases where the
violation by the carrier of some statute enacted for the safety of
employees contributed to the injury of the employee, and that, by
the Safety Appliance Act and amendments, as properly interpreted,
the height or construction of the drawbars of locomotives was not
regulated, so that the fact that the drawbar in question was only
30 inches high was not a violation of these acts, and hence
afforded no ground for a recovery under the Employers' Liability
Act.
There is a motion to dismiss based upon the insistence that the
record presents no question reviewable in this Court under § 237,
Judicial Code (Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156). The
motion must be overruled upon the authority of
St. Louis &
Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281,
210 U. S. 293;
Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 225 U.
S. 477,
225 U. S. 486;
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. McWhirter,
229 U. S. 265;
Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.
S. 492,
233 U. S.
499.
Upon the merits, we, of course, sustain the contention that, by
the Employers' Liability Act, the defense of assumption of risk
remains as at common law, saving in the cases mentioned in § 4 --
that is to say:
"Any case where the violation by such common carrier of any
statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the
injury or death of such employee."
Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.
S. 492,
233 U. S.
503.
This leaves for determination the question whether the provision
of § 5 of the Safety Appliance Act of 1893, respecting the standard
height of drawbars, together with the order of the Interstate
Commerce Commission promulgated
Page 234 U. S. 731
in pursuance of it, and the 1903 amendment of that act, had the
effect of regulating the height of drawbars upon locomotive
engines, as contended by plaintiff, or upon freight cars only, as
contended by defendant.
*
Page 234 U. S. 732
In
Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S.
1, a case that arose under the act as it stood before
the 1903 amendment, it was held that the provision of § 2 rendering
it
"unlawful for any such common carrier to haul or permit
Page 234 U. S. 733
to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving
interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling
automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the
necessity of men going between the ends of the cars,"
was broad enough to embrace locomotive engines within the
description "any car." This conclusion was based upon the declared
purpose of Congress to promote the safety of employees and
travelers upon railroads engaged in interstate commerce, and the
specific intent to require the installation of such an equipment
that the cars would couple with each other automatically by impact,
and obviate the necessity of men going between them either for
coupling or for uncoupling. The Court, by Mr.
Page 234 U. S. 734
Chief Justice Fuller, pointed out (pp.
196 U. S. 20-21)
that, by the amendment of March 2, 1903, the provisions and
requirements of the act were extended to common carriers by
railroad in the territories and the District of Columbia, and were
made to apply "in all cases, whether or not the couplers brought
together are of the same kind, make, or type," and that the
provisions and requirements relating to train brakes, automatic
couplers, grab irons, and the height of drawbars, were made to
apply to "all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar
vehicles, used in any railroad engaged in interstate commerce." And
it was said that this amendment was affirmative and declaratory of
the meaning attributed by the Court to the prior law.
In
Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester &c. Railway,
205 U. S. 1,
205 U. S. 10, it
was held that a shovel car was within the contemplation of § 2.
In
Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S.
20,
222 U. S. 26, it
was held that the 1903 amendment had enlarged the scope of the
original act so as to embrace all locomotives, cars, and similar
vehicles used on any railway that is a highway of interstate
commerce, whether the particular vehicles were at the time employed
in interstate commerce or not.
In
Pennell v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.,
231 U. S. 675, the
question was whether the provision respecting automatic couplers
was applicable to the coupling between the locomotive and the
tender. This was answered in the negative, the Court saying (p.
231 U. S.
678):
"Engine and tender are a single thing -- separable, it may be,
but never separated in their ordinary and essential use. The
connection between them -- that is, between the engine and tender
-- it was testified, was in the nature of a permanent coupling, and
it was also testified that there was practically no opening between
the engine and tender, and that attached to the engine was a
drawbar which fitted in the
Page 234 U. S. 735
yoke of the tender, and the pin was dropped down to connect
drawbar and yoke. The necessary deduction from this is that no
dangerous position was assumed by an employee in coupling the
engine and tender, for the reason that the pin was dropped through
the bar from the tank of the tender."
In each of these cases, the letter of the act was construed in
the light of its spirit and purpose, as indicated by its title no
less than by the enacting clauses. The same guiding principle
should be adhered to in considering the question now presented.
Conceding that it may be doubtful whether the act, in its original
form, evidenced an intent on the part of Congress to standardize
the height of drawbars upon vehicles other than freight cars, and
therefore assuming for argument's sake that the act was not in this
respect applicable to locomotive engines, it seems to us that the
amendment of 1903, manifestly enacted for the purpose of broadening
the scope of the original act, must, upon a fair construction, be
deemed to extend its provisions and requirements respecting the
standard height of drawbars so as to make them applicable to
locomotives, excepting such as are in terms exempted.
There was abundant reason for applying the standard to
locomotives. The drawbar -- sometimes called the "drawhead" --
carries at its outer end the device or mechanism for coupling the
cars. The height of the drawbar determines the height of the
coupler, and has an intimate relation not only to the safety of the
coupling operation, but to the security of the coupling when made.
See Car Builders Dict. (1884), title, "Drawbar" and
"Drawhead," and Figs. 395-643; Voss, Railway Construction (1892)
pp. 16, 91, etc. The evidence in this case shows, without
contradiction, that the gripping surface of the coupling knuckle on
the freight car in question, measured vertically, was between seven
and nine inches, and that,
Page 234 U. S. 736
because of the comparatively low level of the engine's drawbar,
the effective grip was reduced to the point of practical
inefficiency. Indeed, it is not seriously disputed that there
exists as much reason for having the drawbars of the locomotive
adjusted to a standard of height as exists in the case of freight
cars.
The experience of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in seeing
to the enforcement of the Act of 1893, tended to emphasize the
importance of interchangeable equipment upon the rolling stock of
railroads engaged in interstate commerce, so that cars used in such
commerce would readily couple with cars not so used, and that
locomotives could be readily coupled with cars of either sort. The
16th Annual Report of the Commission, 1902, p. 61, recommended to
Congress,
inter alia:
"That provisions relating to automatic couplers, grab irons, and
the height of drawbars, be made to apply to all locomotives,
tenders, cars, and similar vehicles, both those equipped in
interstate commerce and those used in connection therewith (except
those trains, cars, and locomotives exempted by the Acts of March
2, 1893, and April 1, 1896)."
This recommendation appears to have been evoked by the decision
of the circuit court of appeals in
Johnson v. Southern Pacific
Co., 117 F. 462, afterwards reversed by this Court in
196 U. S. 196 U.S.
1. The court of appeals held that there was nothing in the Act of
1893 to require a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce to
have every car on its railroad equipped with the same kind of
coupling, or to require that every car should be equipped with a
coupler that would couple automatically with every other coupler
with which it might be brought into contract, and also that the act
did not forbid the use of an engine not equipped with automatic
couplers. Congress not only responded to the recommendation of the
Commission, but enlarged the act more broadly by enacting
(amendment of March 2, 1903, set forth in footnote,
Page 234 U. S. 737
supra) that the provisions and requirements of the
original act should be held (a) to apply to common carriers by
railroad in the territories and the District of Columbia; (b) to
apply in all cases, whether or not the couplers brought together
are of the same kind, make, or type; (c) that
"the provisions and requirements . . . relating to train brakes,
automatic couplers, grab irons, and the height of drawbars, shall
be held to apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and
similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate
commerce, and in the territories and the District of Columbia, and
to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used
in connection therewith,"
excepting those exempted by the act of March 2, 1893, as amended
April 1, 1896, and those used upon street railways. We have to do
especially with the latter clause. As was intimated in
Southern
Railway Co. v. United States, 222 U.
S. 25, its collocation of phrases is not altogether
artistic. But at least the purpose is plain that, where one vehicle
is used in connection with another, that portion of the equipment
of each that has to do with the safety and security of the
attachment between them shall conform to standard. We cannot assent
to the argument that the clause means only that the locomotives
used upon all railroads engaged in interstate commerce and in the
territories and the District of Columbia are to be equipped with
the appliances provided by the original act for locomotives, and so
on with the other classes of cars, and that hence the amendatory
act has merely the effect of prescribing the standard height of
drawbars with respect to freight cars, because the original act
required such a standard only with respect to cars of that type.
This would give altogether too narrow a construction to the
language employed by Congress, and would lose sight of the spirit
and purpose of the legislation. We deem the true intent and meaning
to be that the provisions and requirements
Page 234 U. S. 738
respecting train brakes, automatic couplers, grab irons, and the
height of drawbars shall be extended to all railroad vehicles used
upon any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and to all other
vehicles used in connection with them, so far as the respective
safety devices and standards are capable of being installed upon
the respective vehicles. It follows that, by the Act of 1903, the
standard height of drawbars was made applicable to locomotive
engines as well as to freight cars. And so it was held by the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Chicago
&c. Railway. Co. v. United States, 196 F. 882, 884.
Judgment affirmed.
* Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat.
531.
"An Act to Promote the Safety of Employees and Travelers upon
Railroads by Compelling Common Carriers Engaged in Interstate
Commerce to Equip Their Cars with Automatic Couplers and Continuous
Brakes, and Their Locomotives with Driving-wheel Brakes, and for
Other Purposes."
"
Be it enacted, etc., that from and after the first day
of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful
for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad
to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate
traffic not equipped with a power driving-wheel brake and
appliances for operating the train-brake system, or to run any
train in such traffic after said date that has not a sufficient
number of cars in it so equipped with power or train brakes that
the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control its
speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for
that purpose."
"SEC. 2. That on and after the first day of January, eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any common
carrier to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car
used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers
coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled
without the necessity of men going between the ends of the
cars."
"
* * * *"
"SEC. 5. That within ninety days from the passage of this act,
the American Railway Association is authorized hereby to designate
to the Interstate Commerce Commission the standard height of
drawbars for freight cars, measured perpendicular from the level of
the tops of the rails to the centers of the drawbars, for each of
the several gauges of railroads in use in the United States, and
shall fix a maximum variation from such standard height to be
allowed between the drawbars of empty and loaded cars. Upon their
determination being certified to the Interstate Commerce
Commission, said Commission shall at once give notice of the
standard fixed upon to all common carriers, owners, or lessees
engaged in interstate commerce in the United States by such means
as the Commission may deem proper. But should said association fail
to determine a standard as above provided, it shall be the duty of
the Interstate Commerce Commission to do so, before July first,
eighteen hundred and ninety-four, and immediately to give notice
thereof as aforesaid. And after July first, eighteen hundred and
ninety-five, no cars, either loaded or unloaded, shall be used in
interstate traffic which do not comply with the standard above
provided for."
"SEC. 6. That any such common carrier using any locomotive
engine, running any train, or hauling or permitting to be hauled or
used on its line any car in violation of any of the provisions of
this act, shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars for
each and every such violation . . .
Provided, that nothing
in this act contained shall apply to trains composed of four-wheel
cars, or to locomotives used in hauling such trains."
"
* * * *"
"SEC. 8. That any employee of any such common carrier who may be
injured by any locomotive, car, or train in use contrary to the
provision of this act shall not be deemed thereby to have assumed
the risk thereby occasioned, although continuing in the employment
of such carrier after the unlawful use of such locomotive, car, or
train had been brought to his knowledge."
Amendment of April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85.
"Be it enacted, etc., that section six of an Act entitled . . .
be amended so as to read as follows:"
"SEC. 6. That any such common carrier using any locomotive
engine, running any train, or hauling or permitting to be hauled or
used on its line any car in violation of any of the provisions of
this Act shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars for
each and every such violation. . . .
Provided, that
nothing in this Act contained shall apply to trains composed of
four-wheel cars or to trains composed of eight-wheel standard
logging cars where the height of such car from top of rail to
center of coupling does not exceed twenty-five inches, or to
locomotives used in hauling such trains when such cars or
locomotives are exclusively used for the transportation of
logs."
Amendment of March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943.
"
Be it enacted, etc., that the provisions and
requirements of the Act entitled, 'An Act to Promote the Safety of
Employees and Travelers upon Railroads by Compelling Common
Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce to Equip Their Cars with
Automatic Couplers and Continuous Brakes, and Their Locomotives
with Driving-wheel Brakes, and for Other Purposes,' approved March
second, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, and amended April first,
eighteen hundred and ninety-six, shall be held to apply to common
carriers by railroads in the territories and the District of
Columbia, and shall apply in all cases, whether or not the couplers
brought together are of the same kind, make, or type, and the
provisions and requirements hereof and of said acts relating to
train brakes, automatic couplers, grab irons, and the height of
drawbars shall be held to apply to all trains, locomotives,
tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in
interstate commerce, and in the territories and the District of
Columbia, and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar
vehicles used in connection therewith, excepting those trains, cars
and locomotives exempted by the provisions of section six of said
act of March second, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, as amended
by the act of April first, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, or
which are used upon street railways."
"
* * * *"
Amendment of April 14, 1910, c. 160, 36 Stat. 298.
"
* * * *"
"SEC. 3. . . . Said Commission is hereby given authority, after
hearing, to modify or change, and to prescribe the standard height
of drawbars, and to fix the time within which such modification or
change shall become effective and obligatory, and prior to the time
so fixed it shall be unlawful to use any car or vehicle in
interstate or foreign traffic which does not comply with the
standard now fixed or the standard so prescribed, and after the
time so fixed it shall be unlawful to use any car or vehicle in
interstate or foreign traffic which does not comply with the
standard so prescribed by the Commission."