Report of Decisions Volume 7 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ... R. G0. vs. Carr, 238 U. S. 260, the employee s injury was due to the negligence of a fellow servant (which barred a recovery under the New York law in the event that at the time of the injury the employee was engaged in intrastate commerce.) We quote fromthe opinion: Carr was a brakeman on a pick-up freight train running from Rochester to Lockport. On November 18, 1910, some of the cars in this train contained interstate freight. Among those engaged in purely intrastate business were the two cars at the head of the train and next to the engine, which werc.to be left at North Tonawanda, New York. On arriving at that point they were uncoupled from the train, pulled by the engine down the track, and then backed into a siding. The railroad company insists that when the two cars were cut out of the train and backed into a siding, they lost their interstate character, so that Carr while working thereon was engaged in intrastate commerce. The scope of the Federal Employers Liability Act is so broad that it covers a vast field about which there can be no discussion. But owing to the fact that, during the same day, railroad employees often and rapidly pass from one class of employment to another, the courts are constantly called upon to decide those close questions where it is ditlicult to define the line which divides the state from interstate business. The matter is not to be decided by considering the physical position of the employee at the moment of injury. If he is hurt in the course of his employment while going to a car to perform an interstate duty; or if he is injured while preparing an engine for an interstate trip he is entitled to the benefits of the federal act, although the accident occurred prior...