In this action for personal injury, governed by the Safety
Appliance and Employers' Liability Acts, it is
held that
the evidence concerning the fitness and efficiency of the automatic
couplers in question, and concerning the special condition which
existed, as a result of the train's being on a curve when the
couplers failed and the accident occurred, did not preclude a
reasonable inference that the Safety Appliance Act was not complied
with.
When couplers fail to couple automatically on a straight track
because of lateral play of the drawheads, the jury may properly
infer that such a degree of play was unnecessary and violative of
the Safety Appliance Act, in the absence of any satisfactory
explanation.
Page 242 U. S. 57
The case is not different where the failure to couple occur on a
curve if the effect of the curvature may have been negligible.
87 N.J.L. 148 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 242 U. S. 58
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action brought by the defendant in error to recover
for the loss of an arm crushed while he was coupling a tender to a
car. There is no dispute that the case is governed by the acts of
Congress -- the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, §§
2, 8, 27 Stat. 531,
Page 242 U. S. 59
and the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, §§
3, 4, 35 Stat. 65. The facts material here are few. The engine had
backed for the purpose of coupling with the car and had failed to
couple automatically by impact. Thereupon the plaintiff, noticing
that the drawhead was not in line with the one on the engine, put
in his arm for the purpose of straightening it and thus making the
coupling possible, and was caught. An exception was taken to the
refusal of a ruling that no negligence was shown on the part of the
railroad company, but the court of errors and appeals affirmed the
judgment of the court below. 87 N.J.L. 148.
If there was evidence that the railroad failed to furnish such
"couplers coupling automatically by impact" as the statute requires
(
Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S.
1,
196 U. S. 18-19),
nothing else needs to be considered. We are of opinion that there
was enough evidence to go to the jury upon that point. No doubt
there are arguments that the jury should have decided the other
way. Some lateral play must be allowed to drawheads, and, further,
the car was on a curve, which, of course, would tend to throw the
coupler out of line. But the jury were warranted in finding that
the curve was so slight as not to affect the case, and in regarding
the track as, for this purpose, a straight line. If couplers failed
to couple automatically upon a straight track, it at least may be
said that a jury would be warranted in finding that a lateral play
so great as to prevent coupling was not needed, and that, in the
absence of any explanation believed by them, the failure indicated
that the railroad had not fully complied with the law.
Chicago,
Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. United States, 220 U.
S. 559,
220 U. S. 571;
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Brown,
229 U. S. 317,
229 U. S.
320-321;
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v.
Wagner, 241 U. S. 476,
241 U. S.
484.
Judgment affirmed.
