49 C.F.R. § 215.123

Defective couplers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A railroad may not place or continue in service a car, if—

(a) The car is equipped with a coupler shank that is bent out of alignment to the extent that the coupler will not couple automatically with the adjacent car;

(b) The car has a coupler that has a crack in the highly stressed junction area of the shank and head as shown in the figure below (see figure 2).

(d) The car has a knuckle pin or knuckle thrower that is:

(1) Missing; or

(2) Inoperative; or

(e) The car has a coupler retainer pin lock that is—

(1) Missing; or

(2) Broken; or

(f) The car has a coupler with any of the following conditions:

(1) The locklift is inoperative;

(2) The coupler assembly does not have anticreep protection to prevent unintentional unlocking of the coupler lock; or

(3) The coupler lock is—

(i) Missing;

(ii) Inoperative;

(iii) Bent;

(iv) Cracked; or

(v) Broken.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Makovy v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 339 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (E.D. Okla. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Makovy v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 339 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (E.D. Okla. 2018). “Those regulations specify a location in the knuckle for a break or crack and the record is unclear if the knuckle in the case at bar was broken or cracked in those precise locations.”

United Transp. Union v. Drew Lewis, Sec'y of Transp., 711 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.123 , .125, .127, .129. While an action would lie for any injuries sustained in performing the manual preparation, because cars have failed to couple automatically, see note 39 infra, this does not make the coupler “defective” within the meaning of FRA…”

Hardlannert v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 928 N.E.2d 172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “§20302 (2000); 49 C.F.R. §215.123 (2009) (prohibiting railroad carriers from equipping railcars with defective couplers or inoperative lock lifts); see also Taluzek v.”

Union Pac. R.R. v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (N.D. Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 20302 (a)(1)(A); 49 C.F.R. § 215.123 ; DOT brief at 9. No such requirement has been imposed, however.”

Bohannon v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co (W.D. La. 2022). · cites it 3× “C.A. § 20302 (a)(1)(A). Additionally, “[a] railroad may not place or continue in service a car” if the railcar has a coupler with a coupler lock that is “inoperative” or “broken.”

Blackmore v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (D. Neb. 2022). “See 49 C.F.R. § 215.123 (defining defective coupler to mean, inter alia, one whose knuckle pin is “inoperative”).”

Hardlannert v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “§20302 (2000); 49 C.F.R. §215.123 (2009) (prohibiting railroad carriers from equipping railcars with defective couplers or inoperative lock lifts); see also Taluzek v.”

— 49 C.F.R. § 215.123(f)(3)(ii) — 1 case

Bohannon v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co (W.D. La. 2022). “C.A. § 20302 (a)(1)(A). Additionally, “[a] railroad may not place or continue in service a car” if the railcar has a coupler with a coupler lock that is “inoperative” or “broken.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.