Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

New York Central Railroad v. Porter

N.Y. Cent. R.R. v. Porter, 249 U.S. 168 (1919)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1919-03-03
Topic
general

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 *169 widow and children under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed New York Central Railroad v. Porter. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
59 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Workers' Compensation & SSDI — Federal Employers' Liability Act — Preemption Where an employee is engaged in interstate commerce at the time of injury, the resulting rights and liabilities arise under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and a state workmen's compensation law does not apply. 249 U.S. at 169 (citing New York Central R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147; Erie R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 170)
  2. Transportation Law — Interstate Commerce — Scope of Employment A railroad section laborer who, while removing snow from the company's premises in a space between a platform and a track used for transporting both interstate and intrastate cars and commerce, is struck and killed by an engine moving on that track, is employed in interstate commerce at the time of the accident. 249 U.S. at 169-170 (citing Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co., 229 U.S. 146; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U.S. 571)
NEW YORK CENT. R.R. CO.v. PORTER,249 U.S. 168(1919)
39 S.Ct. 188
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.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT,
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
No. 134.
Submitted January 10, 1919.
Decided March 3, 1919.
An employee of a railroad company killed by a train while removing snow on its premises from a space between a platform and a track used in interstate as well as intrastate commerce,heldemployed in interstate commerce; the resulting rights and liabilities were determinable by the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the State Workmen's Compensation Law was inapplicable.172 A.D. 918, reversed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Robert E. Whalenfor plaintiff in error.Mr. Merton E. Lewis, Attorney General of the State of New York, andMr. E. Clarence Aikenfor defendants in error.Mr.Albert T. Wilkinson, for defendants in error, in a separate brief.
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 affirmed an award in behalf of hisPage 169widow 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 inPedersenv.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.Page 170