Brady v. Terminal R. Asso.

Brady v. Terminal R. Asso.

Opinion

 [*11]   [**427]   [***616]  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a judgment which petitioner had recovered under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 340 Mo. 841; 102 S. W. 2d 903, and rendered a final judgment in favor of respondent. See State v. Ragland, 339 Mo. 452, 456, 458; 97 S. W. 2d 113. In view of the importance of the question in the administration of the federal statute, this Court granted certiorari.

Petitioner was employed by the Wabash Railway Company as a car inspector in its yard at  [****3]  Granite City, Illinois. He was injured in November, 1927, while inspecting a car which was one of a string of cars brought by the respondent, Terminal Railroad Association  [**428]  of St. Louis, from St. Louis to Granite City and placed upon a track of the Wabash known as a "receiving" or "inbound" track. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the cars were to be accepted by the Wabash.  [*12]  Both the Wabash and the Terminal companies were carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

While making his inspection petitioner stood upon one of the side ladders of the car, and, in attempting to pull himself to the top of the car, petitioner took hold of a grabiron which, with the board to which it was attached, became loose, causing him to fall. The board was found to have "become rotten from end to end on the under side, and to some extent on the upper side around the bolts by which the grabiron was attached to it."

Petitioner first sued his employer, the Wabash, under the provisions of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, but a judgment in his favor was reversed upon the ground that the car had not yet been accepted by the Wabash Company which therefore had not hauled or used  [****4]  it, or permitted it to be hauled or used, within the prohibition of the statute. Brady v. Wabash Ry. Co., 329 Mo. 1123; 49 S. W. 2d 24. While that suit was pending, petitioner brought the present suit against respondent.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.