NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, SUCCESSOR OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY,
v.
PORTER, FOR HERSELF AND FOR HER FOUR MINOR CHILDREN, ETC., ET AL.

U.S. | 1919-03-03
No. 134
Mr. Justice Clarke dissents.
249 U.S. 168 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 536 · 39 S. Ct. 188 · SCDB 1918-184 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2239
Cited by 28 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A section worker for the New York Central Railroad was killed by a passenger train engine while shoveling snow on railroad tracks that carried both interstate and intrastate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed a state court award under New York's Workmen's Compensation Law and held that because the worker was employed in interstate commerce at the time of his death, his case fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Employers' Liability Act rather than state workers' compensation law.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

Lewis M. Porter, a section-man,, was struck and instantly killed by plaintiff in error’s engine attached to a passenger train and moving along the main track. The Appellate Division affirm.ed ah award;in behalf of his widow and children under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law.

If the deceased was employed in interstate commerce when the accident occurred, consequent rights and liabilities arose under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the state statute did not apply. New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147; Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170.

The evidence showed and the State Workmen’s Compensation Commission found: “Lewis M. Porter resided at Camden, N. Y., and upon the date of the accident, December 17, 1914, was in the employ of The New York Central Railroad Company as a laborer. On said date, while engaged in. shoveling. snow upon the premises of The New York Central Railroad Company between the west bound track and a platform near the intersection of said tracks and Mexico Street in the Village of Camden, he-was struck by the engine of a passenger train known as train No. 49, which was proceeding northerly on the west bound' track, receiving injuries from which he died immediately. ' The tracks of The New York Central Railroad Company at the point where the deceased was working, were used for the purpose of transporting both interstate and intrastate cars and both interstate and intrastate commerce.”

Considered in connection with our opinions in Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, and cases there cited, we think the circumstances here presented make it . quite clear that when killed Porter was employed in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the judgment-below must.be reversed .and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Clarke dissents.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Overstreet v. N. Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1943)
    …losely related to such commerce as to be in practice and in legal contemplation a part of it.” Id. at p. 151. See also Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U. S. 101; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168; Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 250 U. S. 130; Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 251 U. S. 259; Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Di Donato, 256 U. S. 327; Rader v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 108 F. 2d 980. Compare Shanks v…
  • Indus. Accident Comm'n of the State of Cal. v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1922)
    …roceedings in accordance with this opinion. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 13; Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168; Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U. S. 101; Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146; Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v…
  • Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1920)
    …. 149, 35 Stat. 65; St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 161; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168; Southern Pacific Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259. The essential facts are not in controversy; the nature of the employment, therefore, is a question of law. The duties of the deceased. never took him out of Pennsylvania;…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw