New York Central Railroad v. Porter

Supreme Court

New York Central Railroad v. Porter

249 U.S. 168, 39 S. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2239

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 3, 1919

Docket134

StatusPublished

Cited by59 cases

This text of 249 U.S. 168 (New York Central Railroad v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York Central Railroad v. Porter, 249 U.S. 168, 39 S. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2239 (1919).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 U.S. 168, 39 S. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-railroad-v-porter-scotus-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack