United States v. Denver & R. G. R. Co.

Citations

• 163 F. 519
• 90 C.C.A. 329
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4570

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Safety Appliance Acts — Pleading — Complaint to Recover Penalty — Not Necessary to Negative Exception in Proviso or Exercise of Reasonable Care — If One Coupler be Inoperative and There be Actual and Substantial Hauling in Interstate Traffic Statute is Violated.</p> <p>A complaint under the safety appliance law of Congress to recover a penalty for hauling a car in moving interstate traffic in violation of section 2 (Acts March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531, and April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174] amended by Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885]), relating to automatic couplers, is not demurrable (a) because it fails to negative the matter of the exception created by the proviso to section 6 (27 Stat. 532 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175] amended by 32 Stat. 943 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885|); or (b) because it only shows that one of the couplers was out of repair and inoperative, and that it was so because the uncoupling chain was “kinked” ; or (c) because it fails to negative the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the railway company in maintaining the coupler in operative condition; or (d) because, although showing an actual and substantial hauling of the car in moving interstate traffic, it fails to specify how far the hauling was continued, or is silent in respect of any actual use of the defective coupler.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Duty of railroad companies to furnish safe appliances, see note to Felton v. Bullard, 37 C. C. A. 8.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>