ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
PARKER

U.S. | 1916-12-04
No. 111
242 U.S. 56 Supreme Court of the United States (1916) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 61 L. Ed. 150 · 37 S. Ct. 69 · 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1529 · SCDB 1916-021
Cited by 51 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

An employee of Atlantic City Railroad Company lost his arm while coupling cars after the engine's drawhead failed to align automatically with the car's coupler. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the employee, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the railroad violated the Safety Appliance Act by failing to furnish couplers that coupled automatically by impact, as the statute required.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

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.' ThereJs 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, 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 thedrawhead' 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, 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 lo drawheads,' and further, the car was on a curvé,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 auto-, matically 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, 571. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 320, 321. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476, 484.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • McCALLEY v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 252 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
    …e device did not operate upon the first or perhaps the second trial was any substantial evidence that there was a statutory defect, or was inconsistent with the thought of the phrase ‘can be operated.’ * * * In [*277] Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 56, 37 S.Ct. 69, 61 L.Ed. 150, the only holding- is that the jury may infer a statutory defect if there is evidence that the required automatic coupling did not occur because there was too much lateral play in the drawheads, and the fact that some late…
  • Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)
    …ed. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U. S. 476;, affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell, 241 U. S. 497; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1916 Term. Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 56; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Moore, 243 U. S. 311; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. [*55…
  • Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947)
    …on the carrier’s negligence. The duty imposed is an absolute one and the carrier is not excused by any showing of care however assiduous.” Brady v. Terminal B. Assn., 303 U. S. 10,15, and cases there cited. See also, Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 56, 59 (automatic couplers required by 27 Stat. 531, 45 U. S. C. § 2); Great Northern R. Co. v. Otos, 239 U. S. 349, 351 (couplers); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 574-575; St. Louis & Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S.…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw