Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Joseph Behrens

Decision Date27 April 1914
Docket NumberNo. 241,241
PartiesILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. JOSEPH BEHRENS, Administrator, etc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Blewett Lee, Hunter C. Leake, and Gustave Lemle for the Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Mr. Armand Romain for Joseph Behrens.

[Argument of Counsel from page 474 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Alfred L. Becker, Mauice C. Spratt, and Lester F. Gilbert as amici curice.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

In an action in the circuit court for the eastern district of Louisiana, under the Federal employers' liability act of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322), against a railroad company, by a personal representative to recover for the death of his intestate, the plaintiff prevailed, and the defendant took the case by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals. That court, desiring instruction upon a question of law arising in the case, certified the question here under § 239 of the Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1157, chap. 231, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 228]. The facts shown in the certificate are these: The intestate was in the service of the railroad company as a member of a crew attached to a switch engine operated exclusively within the city of New Orleans. He was the fireman, and came to his death, while at his post of duty, through a head-on collision. The general work of the crew consisted in moving cars from one point to another within the city over the company's tracks and other connecting tracks. Sometimes the cars were loaded, at other times empty, and at still other times some were loaded and others empty. When loaded the freight in them was at times destined from within to without the state or vice versa; at other times was moving only between points within the state, and at still other times was of both classes. When the cars were empty the purpose was usually to take them where they were to be loaded or away from where they had been unloaded. And oftentimes, following the movement of cars, loaded or empty, to a given point, other cars were gathered up and taken or started elsewhere. In short, the crew handled interstate and intrastate traffic indiscriminately, frequently moving both at once and at times turning directly from one to the other. At the time of the collision the crew was moving several cars loaded with freight which was wholly intrastate, and upon completing that movement was to have gathered up and taken to other points several other cars as a step or link in their transportation to various destinations within and without the state. The question of law upon which the circuit court of appeals desires instruction is whether, upon these facts, it can be said that the intestate, at the time of his fatal injury, was employed in interstate commerce within the meaning of the employers' liability act.

Considering the status of the railroad as a highway for both interstate and intrastate commerce, the interdependence of the two classes of traffic in point of movement and safety, the practical difficulty in separating or dividing the general work of the switching crew, and the nature and extent of the power confided to Congress by the commerce clause of the Constitution, we entertain no doubt that the liability of the carrier for injuries suffered by a member of the crew in the course of its general work was subject to regulation by Congress, whether the particular service being performed at the time of the injury, isolatedly considered, was in interstate or intrastate commerce. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612, 618, 55 L. ed. 878, 882, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20, 26, 56 L. ed. 72, 74, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2, 3 N. C. C. A. 822; Second Employers' Liability Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.) 223 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 327, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, 1 N. C. C. A. 875; Interestate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co. 224 U. S. 194, 213, 56 L. ed. 729, 737, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 432, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1555, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729. The decision in Employer's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
424 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and ... S.Ct. 515, 61 L.Ed. 1070. In Illinois C. R. Co. v ... Behren's Adm'r, 233 U.S. 473, ... Cent. R. Co. v ... Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S.Ct. 646, 58 L.Ed. 1051, ... defendant. Central Vt. R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S ... 507, 35 S.Ct ... ...
  • Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1935
    ...and do not define the scope of constitutional authority as to employees of interstate carriers. Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 477, 34 S.Ct. 646, 58 L.Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163; Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.S. 74, 78, 52 S.Ct. 59, 76 L......
  • Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1918
    ... ... CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & St. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of ... trestle and to support the track of a railroad ... company engaged in the transportation of ... (Howard v. Illinois Cent ... R. Co., 207. U.S. 463, 28 S.Ct. 141, ... A. 992; Illinois ... Cent. Ry. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, Ann. Cas. 1914C, ... 163, 34 ... Ry. Co. v. Owens (Md.), 101 A. 532; ... Central Ry. Co. v. Paslick, 239 F. 713, 152 C. C. A ... ...
  • Middleton v. Texas Power Light Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1919
    ...R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248, 259, 260, 34 Sup. Ct. 305, 58 L. Ed. 591, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 159; Illinois Central R. R. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 478, 34 Sup. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260, 263, 35 Sup. Ct. 780, 59 L. E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT