delivered the opinion of the Court.
Swinson, a freight brakeman in the employ of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway, brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, in the federal district сourt for Minnesota. The accident occurred while he was releasing a handbrake at the end of a tank car. The brake was tightly set. To release it required the application of considerable force to the brake wheel. In order to exert such force, Swinson placed his left foot on the running board, his right foot on a grabiron or handhold, which consisted of a round iron bar bent at the ends, attached horizontally to the under side of the running board, and extending beyond it a few inсhes. As he exerted foot pressure on the grabiron, the plank to which it was attached split, and one of the bolts securing the grabiron pulled through. As a result, he lost his bаlance, fell in front of the moving car and was seriously injured. The parties were еngaged, and the car was used, in interstate commerce.
Swinson claimed that the Railway was liable, independently of negligence on its part, because it had failed to provide the “ secure grabiron or handhold ” required by the Safety Appliance Act. 1 The Railway contended that it was not liable because the grаbiron had been used by Swinson for a purpose for which it was not intended; since the purpose of Congress in requiring “ secure grab irons or handholds ” was to supply an aрpliance to grasp with the *531 hands, not to provide a foot brace or suрport to secure leverage in releasing a handbrake. Although there was evidence that the grabiron was inadequate and defective even for its so-called “ intended use ” of being grasped by the hands, and also evidence that the use which Swinson had made of the grabiron was customary, the trial court sustained the Railwаy’s contention and directed a verdict for it. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entered upon the verdict, 72 F. (2d) 649. Certiorari was granted because the prеcise question, which is of importance, had not been decided by this Court.
The Safеty Appliance Act has been liberally construed so as to give a right of recovery for every injury the proximate cause of which was a failure to comply with a requirement of the Act. Thus, although the Act was intended primarily for the protection of railroad employees, it was held in
Fairport, P. & E. R. Co.
v.
Meredith,
As failure of the grabiron was the proximate cause of the injury, it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. There was evidence on which the jury might have *532 found that the grabiron was not secure for use strictly as a handhold; and that if it had beеn, it would not have failed, since the use made of it by Swinson did not subject it to apprеciably greater strain. There was evidence, also, that use as a foot brаce was a natural and not unusual one. For such a use of the grabiron, Swinson was entitled to assume that it was secure. Compare Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Howell, 6 F. (2d) 784; Didinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 39 F. (2d) 798.
Reversed.
Notes
Section 4 of the Federal Sаfety Appliance Act, Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 4, 27 Stat. 531, provides that “ Until otherwise ordеred by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it shall be unlawful for any railroad company to use any car in interstate commerce that is not provided with secure grab irons or handholds in the ends and sides of each car for greater security to men in coupling arid uncoupling cars.”