## Facts

- Johnson worked as a brakeman for Southern Pacific Company on a freight run between San Francisco, California and Ogden, Utah.
- At Promontory, Utah, he was ordered to uncouple the engine and couple it to a company dining car on a side track so the dining car could be turned for later use on a westbound passenger train.
- The locomotive used a Janney coupler and the dining car used a Miller hook; the devices would not couple automatically by impact.
- Because the couplers were incompatible, Johnson had to go between the engine and dining car to complete the coupling.
- During the coupling attempt, Johnson’s hand was crushed between the bumpers, requiring amputation above the wrist.
- Johnson sought damages on the theory that the railroad violated the Safety Appliance Act of 1893 by using equipment that did not allow automatic coupling, forcing him into a dangerous position.

## Issues

1. Whether “any car” in the Safety Appliance Act’s automatic-coupler requirement includes locomotive engines.
2. Whether a dining car temporarily standing on a side track, but regularly used in interstate service and awaiting its next trip, is “used in moving interstate traffic” under the Act.
3. Whether a carrier complies with the Act by installing “automatic couplers” that will not automatically couple with each other, still requiring employees to go between units.
4. Whether assumption of risk remains a defense when an employee’s injury results from a violation of the Safety Appliance Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the railroad.
- Locomotive engines fall within “any car” for purposes of the Act’s automatic-coupler requirement.
- A dining car regularly used in interstate traffic remains within the Act while waiting between trips for its next interstate assignment.
- Equipping equipment with couplers that do not automatically couple with each other is not compliance; the statute requires coupling that avoids the need for employees to go between units.
- Where the Act is violated, common-law assumption of risk does not defeat the employee’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- The Safety Appliance Act’s reference to “any car” includes locomotives for the automatic-coupler mandate.
- Equipment remains “used in moving interstate traffic” when its interstate role is continuous and it is temporarily idle between interstate runs.
- Compliance requires functional automatic coupling between units; nominal installation of “automatic” devices that are not mutually compatible violates the Act.
- Federal railroad safety duties imposed by statute are not avoided through common-law defenses such as assumption of risk when the statute applies and is breached.
- Remedial federal safety statutes are construed to carry out their protective purpose and not read so narrowly as to defeat that purpose.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Safety Appliance Act applied to the locomotive and dining car involved, required automatic couplers that would couple with each other by impact, and prevented the railroad from relying on assumption of risk to avoid liability where statutory noncompliance contributed to the brakeman’s injury.


Johnson v. S. Pac. Co., 196 U.S. 1 (1904)