SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
v.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
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.
Southern Pacific Company challenged a California workers' compensation award to the widow of an employee killed by electric shock while maintaining power lines that supplied electricity to the company's railroad cars. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the employee's work maintaining the electrical infrastructure directly connected to interstate rail transportation was so closely integrated with interstate commerce that the Federal Employers' Liability Act applied rather than California's state workers' compensation law, rendering the state award inapplicable.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynoios delivered the opinion of the court.
William T. Butler, husband of respondent Mary E. . Butler, was killed at Oakland, California, while employed by the Southern Pacific Company as an electric lineman. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed an award rendered by the California Industrial Commission against the company, and the cause, is properly here by writ of certiorari.
The fatal accident, which occurred June 21, 1917, arose out of and happened in the course of deceased’s employment. He “received an electric shock while wiping insulators, which caused him to fall from a steel power pole,' producing injury which proximately caused his death.” At that time the company, a common carrier by railroad, maintained a power house at Fruitvale, California, where it manufactured the electric current which moved its cars engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce. From the generators this current passed along main lines or cables, through .a reduction and transforming station, to. the trolley wires, and thence to the motors. When he received the electric shock, deceased was engaged in work on one of the main lines necessary to keep it in serviceable condition. If such work was part of interstate commerce, •the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State is inapplicable and the judgment below must be reversed. Otherwise, it must be affirmed. Employers’ Liability Act, April 22,1908, c.149, 35 Stat. 65; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168.
Generally, when applicability of the Federal Employers' liability Act is uncertain, the character of the employment, in relation to commerce, may be adequately tested by inquiring whether, at the time of the injury, the employee was engaged in work so closely connected with interstate transportation as practically to be a part of it. Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, 151; Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556, 558; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Porter, supra; Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 250 U. S. 130, 133.
Power is no less essential than tracks or bridges to the movement of cars. The accident under consideration occurred while deceased was wiping insulators actually supporting a wire which then carried electric power so intimately connected with the propulsion of cars that if it hád been short-circuited through his body, they would have stopped instantly. Applying the suggested test, we think these circumstances suffice to show that his work was directly and immediately connected with interstate transportation and an essential part of it.
The judgment of the court below is 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 (12 total)
-
Overstreet v. N. Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1943)…adelphia, 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. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556; Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U. S. 74; Chicago & Eastern Illino…
-
Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1921)…he accident the employee was engaged in interstate or in intrastate commerce. Since the Act of September 6, 1916, certiorari is the proper means of reviewing a judgment involving that question. Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259. If the rule now insisted upon obtains, the carrier could in every such case secure a review on writ of error by simply claim [*299] ing that the state statute is invalid under the commerce clause if construed so as to apply to the special facts of…
-
Indus. Accident Comm'n of the State of Cal. v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1922)…practically a part of it?” Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556. This test was followed in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, and Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259. Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. is particularly applicable to the present case. It illustrates the test by a contrast of examples and by it, and the cases that have followed it, the ruling of the District Court of Appeal must be…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1917)
- Pedersen v. Delaware, 229 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1913)
- Shanks v. Delaware, 239 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1916)
- N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1917)
- Chicago v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1916)
- Delaware v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1915)
- N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Solum, 247 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1918)
- Minneapolis & ST. Louis R.R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1917)
- Raymond v. Chicago, 243 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1917)
- Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1917)