ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
SZARY
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.
A railroad employee lost his leg when struck by an engine while crossing tracks in the railroad yards after completing work related to servicing engines bound for interstate destinations. The Supreme Court affirmed a $20,000 judgment for damages under the Employers' Liability Act, holding that the employee's service was rendered in interstate commerce because his duties of preparing sand and removing ashes were intimately related and necessary to the final purpose of maintaining engines engaged in interstate transportation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
Action for damages under the Employers’ Liability Act, for the loss of a leg in the railroad company’s service. The verdict and judgment were for $20,000. The contest in the case is whether the injury was received in interstate or intrastate service.
The judges below concurred in the judgment but disagreed upon the grounds of it. Judges Hand and Hough concurred on the authority of the Collins Case (259 Fed. Rep. 172), though Judge Hand did hot sit in it, and Judge Hough dissented from its judgment.
As we have just affirmed that case, if it is not distinguishable from the case at bar, the latter must also be affirmed. A distinction is not asserted but both cases are attacked. In our opinion in the Collins Case, ante, 77, we have reviewed most of the cases upon which the company relies in this, and whether their principle applies depends upon the facts. We collect them from the testimony and represent them as the jury had a right to consider them, omitting conflicts. Sand is necessary to an engine and must be used dry. Szary and two others were employed in its preparation, which was done in what is called the “sand house,” a small structure standing in the yards of the company along side of the tracks. The drying was done in four large stoves which it was the duty of Szary and his associates to attend. Soft coal was the heating means and the resulting ashes were dumped in an ash pit, to do which a track had to be crossed.
On the night of the accident, January 5, 1917, Szary began his duties at 6 o’clock, and sanded about seven engines whose destinations were other States. He sanded the last engine at 9 o’clock, and after doing so, he removed the ashes from the stove and carried them to the ash pit in a pail according to his custom; in doing which he was compelled to cross one of the tracks. He emptied the pail and left it on the ground while he went to the engine-room to get a drink of water, and when returning for the pail and crossing the track he was hit by an engine. He had looked and saw no engine and heard no signal. He described the night as “very dark and very foggy and rainy and misty,” and testified that he could not see anything, the steam and smoke from the engines in all parts of the yard being so thick that he could see nothing.
The engine that hit him was running backwards and without a light. He was picked up and carried to a hospital and his left leg was amputated' the same night from two to three inches below the knee.
We think these facts bring the case within the Collins Case and the test there deduced from prior decisions. There were attempts there, and there are attempts here, to separate the duty and assign it character by intervals of time, and distinctions between the acts of service. Indeed something is attempted to be made of an omission, or an asserted omission, in the evidence, of the kind of commerce in which the las,t engine served was engaged. The distinctions aré too artificial for acceptance. The acts of service were too intimately related and too necessary for the final purpose to be distinguished in legal character. The conclusion that the service of Szary was rendered in interstate commerce determines the correctness of the ruling of the District Court upon the motion to dismiss made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, and afterwards for particular instructions and the objections to the charge by the court. All of the. rulings were based on the character of the commerce, the court adjudging it to be interstate.
It hence follows that the judgment must be and it is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice VanDevanter and Mr. Justice Pitney , dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Burnet v. Coronado OIL & GAS Co., 285 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1932)…lly overruled its earlier decisions although correction might have been secured by legislation. See Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 284 U. S. 296, overruling Erie R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U. S. 77, and Erie R. Co. v. Szary, 253 U. S. 86; Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 278 U. S. 349, 357, in part overruling Friedlander v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 416; Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 260 U. S. 653, 659, overruling Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, and qualifying In r…
-
Chicago & E. Ill. R.R. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ill., 284 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1932)…tern Union Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 366. The contention that Thomas was employed in inter-’ state commérce at the time of the injury, rests upon the decisions of this court in Erie R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U. S. 77, and Erie R. Co. v. Szary, 253 U. S. 86. In the Collins case the employee, at the time of his'» injury, was operating a gasoline engine to pump water into a tank for the use of locomotives engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce. In the Szary case the duty of the employee was t…
-
Farmers' Bank & Tr. Co. of Hardinsburg v. Atchison, 25 F.2d 23 (8th Cir. 1928)…in a small structure near the track and supply it to the locomotives was injured while running from an ash pit where [*30] he had gone to dump ashes - taken by him from one of the stoves after sanding several locomotives. Erie Railroad Co. v. Szary, 253 U. S. 86, 40 S. Ct. 454, 64 L. Ed. 794. The court said in this case (pages 89, 90 [40 S. Ct. 455]): “Indeed something is attempted to be made of an omission, or an asserted omission, in the evidence, of the kind of commerce in which the last engine served wa…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shanks v. Delaware, 239 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1916)
- Chicago v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1916)
- Delaware v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1915)
- Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1914)
- Minneapolis & ST. Louis R.R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1917)
- Lehigh Valley R.R. Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1917)
- The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Branson, 242 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1917)