New York Cent Co v. Chisholm

• Decision Date: 13 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 306,306
• Parties: NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. v. CHISHOLM
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

268 U.S. 29

45 S.Ct. 402

69 L.Ed. 828

NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.

v CHISHOLM.

No. 306.

Argued March 19, 20, 1925.

Decided April 13, 1925.

Mr. Lowell A. Mayberry, of Boston, Mass., for New York Cent. R. co.

Mr. Wm. H. Lewis, of Boston, Mass., for administrator.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

On November 9, 1920, McTier, a citizen of the United States, while employed on a passenger train operated by the New York Central Railroad Company between Malone, N. Y., and Montreal, Canada, suffered fatal injuries at a point 30 miles north of the international line. His administrator, also a citizen of the United States, claiming damages under the federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (chapter 149, 35 Stat. 65), as amended April 5, 1910 (chapter 143, 36 Stat. 291 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]), brought an action in the United States District Court for Massachusetts and recovered a judgment for $3,000. This went for review to the court below, and it has asked instruction on the question which follows (Judicial Code, § 239 [Comp. St. § 1216]):

'Has the administrator of an employee of a common carrier, who receives an injury in a foreign country resulting in his death—the employee and the common carrier being at the time engaged in foreign commerce and both citizens of the United States—a right of action under the federal Employers' Liability Act, or must he rely on the law or statute of the foreign country where the alleged act of negligence occurred or the cause of action arose?'

The Liability Act declares that every common carrier by railroad, while engaging in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be liable to any of its employees, or, in the case of his death, to his personal representative for the benefit of his widow and children, if any, if none, then for his parents, if none, then for his next of kin dependent upon him, for all damages which may result from the negligence of any of its officers, agents, or employees, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency due to its negligence in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, ways or works.

And section 6 provides:

'Under this act an action may be brought in a Circuit Court of the United States, in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing such action. The jurisdiction of the courts of the Unites States under this act shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several states, and no case arising under this act and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.'

It is unnecessary for us to consider the power of Congress to impose civil liability upon citizens of the United States for torts committed within the territory of another nation. The present case presents nothing beyond a question of construction.

The statute under consideration lacks the essential characteristics of those, now very common, which provide for compensation to employees injured in the line of duty irrespective of the master's fault. It only undertakes to impose liability for negligence which must be shown by proof (Southern Ry. Co. v. Gray, 241 U. S. 333, 339, 36 S. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 150, 37 S. Ct. 546, 61 L. Ed. 1045, L. R. A. 1918C, 439, Ann. Cas....