## Facts

- Adam M. Schlemmer worked as a brakeman on a train operating in interstate commerce between New York and Pennsylvania.
- He was ordered to couple a steam shovel car to a caboose while the equipment moved slowly.
- The shovel car was not equipped with a coupler that coupled automatically by impact; instead, it used a heavy drawbar that required a worker to go between the cars and lift and guide the drawbar into the caboose’s coupler.
- Because the shovel car lacked buffers and sat high relative to the caboose, a failed coupling would expose a person between the cars to crushing.
- At dusk, while attempting the coupling from between the cars, Schlemmer rose slightly; the coupling failed, and his head was crushed, killing him.
- His widow, as administratrix, sued the railroad for wrongful death based on the railroad’s alleged violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the Safety Appliance Act’s automatic-coupler requirement applies to a steam shovel car hauled as part of an interstate train.
2. Whether the plaintiff must plead and prove that the railroad does not fall within a statutory proviso allowing limited movement of nonconforming cars, or whether the railroad bears that burden as an exception.
3. Whether a state court may bar recovery by labeling the employee’s conduct “contributory negligence” when the federal statute removes assumption of risk for injuries caused by noncompliant couplers.
4. Whether hearsay testimony, admitted without timely objection, may be treated as evidence when ruling on a nonsuit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state-court judgment affirming a nonsuit and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held the Safety Appliance Act applies to all kinds of rail cars, including special equipment such as steam shovel cars, when hauled in interstate traffic.
- The Court held the plaintiff need not negate the statute’s proviso; if the railroad relies on the exception, it must plead and prove it.
- The Court held the statutory removal of assumption of risk cannot be defeated by recharacterizing the same statutory risk as contributory negligence.
- The Court stated that testimony based on hearsay is still evidence unless a hearsay objection is made in time.

## Legal Principles

- The Safety Appliance Act’s requirement of automatic couplers extends broadly to rail equipment running on rails, including nonstandard cars, when used in moving interstate traffic.
- A statutory proviso that creates an exception is a defense; the party invoking it bears the burden to bring itself within the exception.
- When federal law removes assumption of risk for injuries attributable to noncompliance with the Safety Appliance Act, a state court may not reintroduce the barred defense by using another label, including contributory negligence tied to the same conditions.
- Evidence admitted without timely hearsay objection may be considered on procedural motions, including a motion for nonsuit.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Safety Appliance Act covered the nonconforming shovel car in interstate movement, required the railroad to prove any statutory exception, and prevented state courts from defeating the Act’s employee protections by treating the federally barred assumption-of-risk defense as contributory negligence.


Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 1 (1907)