New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. Carr
238 U.S. 260 (1915)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260 (1915)

New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Carr

No. 257

Argued May 4, 1915

Decided June 14, 1915

238 U.S. 260

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION,

FOURTH DEPARTMENT, STATE OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

During the same day, railroad employees often and rapidly pass from intrastate to interstate employment, and the courts are constantly called upon to decide close questions as to the dividing line between the two classes of employment. Each case must be decided in the light of its particular facts.

In this case, held that:

A brakeman on an intrastate car in a train consisting of both intrastate and interstate cars who is engaged in cutting out the intrastate car so that the train may proceed on its interstate business is, while so, doing engaged and employed in interstate commerce, and may maintain an action under the Employers' Liability Act.

158 App.Div. 891 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict and judgment for damages under the Employers' Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.

Page 238 U. S. 261

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Carr was a brakeman on a "pick-up" freight train running from Rochester to Lockport over the lines of the New York Central. On November 18, 1910, some of the cars in this train contained interstate freight. Among those engaged in purely intrastate business were the two

Page 238 U. S. 262

cars at the head of the train and next to the engine, which were 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. It was the duty of one brakeman (O'Brien) to uncouple the air hose from the engine, and for the other (Carr) to set the hand brakes in order to prevent the two cars from rolling down upon the main track. O'Brien, having failed to open the gauge to the stopcock, suddenly and negligently "broke" the air hose. The result was that the sudden escape of air -- applied only in cases of emergency -- violently turned the wheel handle attached to the brake which Carr at the time was attempting to set. The wrench threw Carr to the ground, and for the injuries thus suffered he brought suit in a state court. If the case was to be governed by the law of New York, he was not entitled to recover, since the injury was due to the negligence of O'Brien, a fellow servant. He did recover a verdict under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and, the judgment thereon having been affirmed (157 App.Div. 941, 158 App.Div. 891), the case is here on writ of error to review that ruling.

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, and not entitled to recover under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The scope of that statute 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 difficult to define the line which divides the state from the interstate business. The present case is an instance of that kind, and many arguments have been advanced by the railway company

Page 238 U. S. 263

to support its contention that, as these two cars had been cut out of the interstate train and put upon a siding, it could not be said that one working thereon was employed in interstate commerce. But 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 to the actual coupling of the engine to the interstate cars. St. Louis &c. Ry. v. Seale,229 U. S. 156; North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary,232 U. S. 248. This case is within the principle of those two decisions.

The plaintiff was a brakeman on an interstate train. As such, it was a part of his duty to assist in the switching, backing, and uncoupling of the two cars so that they might be left on a siding in order that the interstate train might proceed on its journey. In performing this duty, it was necessary to set the brake of the car still attached to the interstate engine, so that, when uncoupled, the latter might return to the interstate train and proceed with it, with Carr and the other interstate employees, on its interstate journey.

The case is entirely different from that of Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Behrens,233 U. S. 473, for there, the train of empty cars was running between two points in the same state. The fact that they might soon thereafter be used in interstate business did not affect their intrastate status at the time of the injury for if the fact that a car had been recently engaged in interstate commerce or was expected soon to be used in such commerce brought them within the class of interstate vehicles, the effect would be to give every car on the line that character. Each case must be decided in the light of the particular facts with a view of determining whether, at the time of the injury, the employee is

Page 238 U. S. 264

engaged in interstate business or in an act which is so directly and immediately connected with such business as substantially to form a part or a necessary incident thereof. Under these principles, the plaintiff is to be treated as having been employed in interstate commerce at the time of his injury, and the judgment in his favor must be

Affirmed.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.