U.S. Code » Title 45 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— SAFETY APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT ON RAILROAD ENGINES AND CARS, AND PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AND TRAVELERS

45 U.S.C. § 1 to 14

Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, § 7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 45 CasesGoogle Scholar

45 U.S.C. § 1 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 45 U.S.C. § 1 to 14, shown below.

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 373 cases, 1923–2020 · leading case: Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299 (1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299 (1990). · cites it 4× “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 1 (1982 ed.). PATH moved to dismiss both complaints, asserting that PATH enjoyed New York and New Jersey's sovereign immunity and thus that the Eleventh Amendment deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over the suits.”
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949). · cites it 4× “7, to show that in drafting the 1916 Act "the committee intended to remedy the inadequacy of the act of May 30, 1908, with reference to `occupational diseases.”
S. Pac. Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761 (1945). · cites it 2× “§ 26 (b), permitting the Commission to order the installation of train stop and control devices, operate of their own force to exclude state regulation of train lengths, has even less support.”
Charles A. Ries, III v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 960 F.2d 1156 (3d Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “45 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2, 4, 11 (Safety Appliance Act); 45 U.”
Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 861 P.2d 326 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Appellant brought suit in the District Court of Tulsa County alleging Appellee was strictly liable in damages for the death of her husband, based on 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (1988), called the “Safety Appliance Act” (SAA), based on the belief that because Appellee owned the track,…”
Max D. Erskine v. Consol. Rail Corp., 814 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “He alleged violations of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.”
Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 395 U.S. 164 (1969). · cites it 2× “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. Consequently, I think the question of a railroad's liability to a person injured by a violation of that Act is a federal, not a state, question.”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 858 A.2d 1025 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). “Watering Down the Proof of Negligence Yet another strongly plaintiff-friendly departure of the FELA from common law negligence actions is that if the railroad is guilty of any violation of the Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., or the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.”
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957). · cites it 3× “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 1 , which requires "power driving-wheel brake[s]" and a "train-brake system," speaks in terms of a "locomotive engine," "engineer," "brakemen" and "train.”
Alabama State Docks Terminal Ry. v. Lyles, 797 So. 2d 432 (Ala. 2001). “; and the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., alleging that negligence on the part of the Terminal Railway had caused him to suffer personal injury while working within the line and scope of his employment with the Terminal Railway.”
Dennis Deans v. CSX Transp., Inc., 152 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 1998). “1991) (looking at earlier version of Safety Appliances Act, 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (repealed 1994)); see also Angell v.”
Pennsylvania R.R. v. O'Rourke, 344 U.S. 334 (1953). · cites it 2× “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., as the causative factor.”
Show all 373 citing cases →
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.