Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company

236 F.2d 666
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided October 8, 1956·No. 12991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alleging that he was injured while repairing railroad sleeping cars in the course of his employment by appellee, appellant brought this suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, as amended, which is applicable to “every common carrier by railroad * * 1 The District Court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on its view that the uncontroverted affidavit of appellee's vice-president established that appellee was not a “common carrier by railroad.” On this appeal appellant insists that whether or not appellee is subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act remains a genuine issue of material fact and must therefore be tried. We think the District Court was clearly right. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 1920, 254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; Taylor v. New York Central R. Co., 1945, 294 N.Y. 397, 404, 62 N.E.2d 777, 780; Latsko v. National Carloading Corp., 6 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 905, 909; S.Rep.No. 661, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1939).

Affirmed.

1

. 53 Stat. 1404 (1939), 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company, 236 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

236 F.2d 666 (Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patterson v. People
377 P.2d 74 (California Supreme Court, 1962)