(a) Handbrakes (includes foot operated brake). Each track motorcar shall be equipped with an efficient handbrake so located that it can be safely operated while the car is in motion. Each handbrake shall be equipped with a ratchet or other suitable device which will provide a means of keeping the brake applied when car is not in motion.
Note:The requirements of this rule will be satisfied if the ratchet or other suitable device operates in connection with at least one handbrake on track motorcars that may be equipped with more than one such brake.
(b) Handholds. One or more safe and suitable handholds conveniently located shall be provided. Each handhold shall be securely fastened to car.
(c) Sill steps or footboards. Each track motorcar shall be equipped with safe and suitable sill steps or footboards conveniently located and securely fastened to car when bed or deck of track motorcar is more than 24 inches above top of rail.
(d) Couplers. When used to haul other cars, each track motorcar shall be equipped with a coupler at each end where such cars are coupled (1) which provides a safe and secure attachment, (2) which can be coupled or uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.
Notes of Decisions
Donald E. Beissel v. The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co., a Corp., 801 F.2d 143 (3rd Cir. 1986).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff contends that the defendant violated a regulation issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Acts, 49 C.F.R. § 231.25 (c), when it permitted its employees to use the multi-purpose vehicle equipped with a sill step which allegedly was not securely fastened.”
Cent. of Georgia R.R. v. Lightsey, 400 S.E.2d 652 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
“49 CFR §§ 231.25 ; 231.26. The regulations are consistent with the FRA’s conclusion that it “is responsible for all vehicles that are utilized on [tracks] during the period of such usage.”
Gadsden v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 140 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The court further found Gadsden’s deposition testimony and affidavit insufficient to support a finding by a rational jury that the handholds or footboards were not conveniently located as required under the SAA and 49 C.”
Cobb v. Metro-North R.R., 41 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D. Conn. 2014).
“3d at 209 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 231.25 ). The plaintiff offered evidence in the form of his deposition testimony and affidavit that the rail vehicle lacked conveniently located handholds and footboards, and the court stated that a determination of whether the handholds and…”
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.