Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hiles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reaffirming that failure of equipment to perform as required is sufficient to create SAA liability, dependent on neither negligence nor proof of defect
• stating that “the SAA creates an absolute duty requiring not only that automatic couplers be present, but also that they actually perform,” and that liability for a violation of the SAA is not dependent on negligence
• explaining the “restriction on failure-to- perform liability extends to every step necessary to prepare a non-defective coupler for coupling.”
• “We think Affolder’s restriction on failure-to-perform liability logically extends to every step necessary to prepare a non-defective coupler for coupling”
• resolving split of authority contrary to state court's ruling
• resolving split of authority contrary to state court’s ruling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).