Cite as: 516 U. S. 400 (1996)
Opinion of the Court
ter of law, a misaligned drawbar is a malfunctioning drawbar, when, in fact, misalignment occurs as a part of the normal course of railroad car operations. His reading of § 2 would mean that every railroad car for nearly a century has been in violation of the SAA. Also contrary to Hiles' argument, § 2 does not command railroads to develop a mechanism for automatic drawbar realignment. Congress legislated working automatic couplers for employee safety, not employee safety by whatever means a court might deem appropriate. Pp. 409-414. 268 Ill. App. 3d 561, 644 N. E. 2d 508, reversed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas W. Alvey, Jr., Kurt E. Reitz, and Mary Sue Juen.
Lawrence M. Mann argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Jeanne Sathre.*
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Before us in this case is the question whether § 2 of the Safety Appliance Act (SAA), 49 U. S. C. § 20302(a)(1)(A), makes a railroad liable as a matter of law for injuries incurred by a railroad employee while trying to straighten a misaligned drawbar. We hold that it does not and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court.
I
Railroad cars in a train are connected by couplers located at both ends of each car. A coupler consists of a knuckle joined to the end of a drawbar, which itself is fastened to a housing mechanism on the car. A knuckle is a clamp that interlocks with its mate, just as two cupped hands—placed palms together with the fingertips pointing in opposite direc-*Robert W. Blanchette filed a brief for the Association of American Railroads as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Robert B. Thompson, Patrick J. Harrington, and Clinton J. Miller III filed a brief for the United Transportation Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
401
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007