The act as amended embraces all locomo-. tives, cars and similar vehicles used on any railway that is a highway of commerce and is not confined exclusively to vehicles engaged in such commerce; Southern Ry. Co. v. U. S., 222 U. S. 20, 32 Sup. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72. It is immaterial whether a car is full or emp ty; Johnson v. Ry. Co., 178 Fed. 643, 102 C. C. A. 89; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. U. S., 186 Fed. 280, 108 C. C. A. 326.
An inspector Is not bound to inform a car rier of defects in its appliances ; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 191 Fed. 302, 112 C. C. A. 46.
In Larabee v. R. Co., 182 Mass. 348, 66 N. E. 1032, it was held that a locomotive tender was not a car; so in Blanchard v. Ry. Co., 139 Mich. 694, 103 N. W. 170 ; automatic coupler acts do not apply to electric street railway cars; 24 Oh. C. C. 67.
The duty under the act to equip cars used in moving interstate traffic with couplers coupling automatically by impact which can be uncoupled without any necessity for men going between the ends of the cars, is abso lute; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061; Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 169 Fed. 372, 94 C. C. A. 652; it is not a matter of due diligence, but of absolute duty; Delk v. R. Co., 220 U. S. 580, 31 Sup. Ct. 617, 55 L. Ed. 590; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582; nor is the carrier's duty complete by supplying au tomatic couplers in the first instance. They must at all times be kept in such condition that they may be operated without the neces sity of men going between the ends of the cars, to couple and uncouple them; Southern R. Co. v. Snyder, 205 Fed. 868, 124 C. C. A.
60; Johnson v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 196 U.
S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 158, 49 L. Ed. 363. The fail ure of the coupler to work sustains a charge of negligence; Chicago, R.- I. & P. R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 33 Sup. Ct. 840, 57 L. Ed. 1204. It is no defense that one side will couple ; U. S. v. R. Co., 157 Fed. 893: U. S. v. Southern Pac. Co., 167 Fed. 699 ; nor for the carrier to show that a car with a defec tive coupler was moved without its knowl edge; U. S. v. Southern Pac. Co., 167 Fed.
699; nor that it employed competent inspec tors and repairers to care for such safety ap pliances; U. S. v. Southern R. Co., 135 Fed. 122; nor that the lowering of a draw bar was due to the breaking of a king pin and not to any defect of its own; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. U. S., 198 Fed. 637, 117 C. C. A. 341; nor that the grab iron was lost or the coupling became defective so recently as to make it impossible, with ordinary care, to replace or repair them; U. S. v. R. Co., 167 Fed. 198.
Every car In a train in interstate commerce is impressed with an interstate character ; U. S. v. R. Co., 167 Fed. 198.
The penalty in the act is civil; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582.
The act took away from the carrier the de fence of assumption of risk by the employ6, but did not affect that of contributory negli gence; Schlemmer v. R. Co., 220 U. S. 590, 31 Sup. Ct. 561, 55 L. Ed. 596. • The scope of the act was fully considered in St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061; see Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582.