Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Company, 465
Citation | 20 L.Ed.2d 112,390 U.S. 538,88 S.Ct. 1239 |
Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 465,465 |
Parties | Elisha EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS COMPANY |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Arne Werchick, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
John J. Corrigan, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
The Federal Employers' Liability Act provides that every common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce shall be liable in damages for the injury or death of its employees resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of the railroad or its agents or resulting from defects in its equipment due to its negligence.1 The question in this case is whether the respondent Pacific Fruit Express Company is a 'common carrier by railroad.'
The respondent is the largest company of its kind in the United States. It owns, maintains, and leases refrigerator cars to railroads to transport perishable products in commerce. Because it repairs its own cars, it also owns buildings, plants, switching tracks, and equipment to make these repairs. While the railroads to which its cars are leased transport them as directed, the respondent Express Company reserves the right to have the cars diverted to carry out its own business plans. The petitioner Edwards works as an iceman at one of respondent's repair and concentration plants. His duties are to transport ice and help store it in cars for carriage by the railroads. While driving a company motor vehicle in the performance of his duty as an employee for respondent, he was thrown violently to the ground, covered with burning gasoline and severely burned. He later brought this action against respondent, charging it was a 'common carrier by railroad' and liable for damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Contending that it was not a railroad within the meaning of the Act, respondent company moved for a summary judgment which the District Court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 378 F.2d 54, and we granted certiorari. 389 U.S. 912, 88 S.Ct. 239, 19 L.Ed.2d 259. We agree with both courts and affirm.
In conducting its business of providing and servicing insulated railroad cars for the carriage of perishable commodities, it is undoubtedly true that respondent performs some railroad functions. For example, it maintains and takes care of railroad cars which are leased to railroads for transportation in interstate commerce. It services these cars while in transit and controls their eventual destination. And respondent has yards and facilities for the repair and storage of its refrigerator cars. The ques- tion is whether such functions as these are sufficient to constitute respondent a 'common carrier by railroad.' For the answer to this question we must look to past judicial decisions interpreting the Federal Employers' Liability Act and also the legislative history surrounding the Act.
This Court has held that the words 'common carrier by railroad' mean Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 187 188, 41 S.Ct. 93, 98, 65 L.Ed. 205. (Emphasis added.) This interpretation of the Act with its references to 'operat(ing) a railroad' and a 'going railroad' would indicate that the business of renting refrigerator cars to railroads or shippers and providing protective service in the transportation of perishable commodities is not of itself that of a 'common carrier by railroad.' And indeed the Wells Fargo decision held that express companies were not within the coverage of the Act.2 In an even earlier case, Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U.S. 84, 35 S.Ct. 491, 59 L.Ed. 849, this Court held that a Pullman car porter was not an employee of a railroad, hence, not within the coverage of the Act. These decisions are based on the rationale that there exist a number of activities and facilities which, while used in conjunction with railroads and closely related to railroading, are yet not railroading itself. In fact, this Court pointed out in the Robinson case, in discussing the coverage of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, that, 237 U.S., at 94, 35 S.Ct., at 494.
In 1939 Congress substantially amended the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Because of such decisions as Wells Fargo, supra, and Robinson, supra, one of the proposed amendments3 would have changed the coverage language of § 1 of the Act to read as follows: 'Every common carrier by railroad, including every express company, freight forwarding company, and sleeping-car company, engaged in commerce * * *.' Obviously the proposal was designed to nullify this Court's construction of the Act which had excluded employees of sleeping-car companies and express companies. In committee the proposal received little support and was even opposed by certain segments of organized labor, and it failed to pass.4 By refusing to broaden the meaning of railroads, Congress declined to extend the coverage of the Act to activities and facilities intimately associated with the business of common carrier by railroad.
Equally significant is the fact that in the years immediately preceding the 1939 amendment to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, Congress had enacted other major labor and social transportation legislation in which refrigerator car companies were expressly included. For example, in the decade of the 1930's Congress passed the following Acts which specifically extend coverage to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harper v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc.
...was not a "common carrier by railroad" under the Employers’ Liability Act of 1908); see also Edwards v. Pac. Fruit Express Co. , 390 U.S. 538, 540–41, 88 S.Ct. 1239, 20 L.Ed.2d 112 (1968) (characterizing the list of businesses found in the RLA definition of "carriers" (express companies, sl......
-
Harper v. Amazon.com Servs.
...the latter was not a "common carrier by railroad" under the Employers' Liability Act of 1908); see also Edwards v. Pac. Fruit Express Co., 390 U.S. 538, 540-41 (1968) (characterizing the list of businesses found in the RLA definition of "carriers" (express companies, sleeping-car companies,......
-
Greene v. Long Island R. Co., Docket No. 00-9292.
...track, roadbed, and other property pertaining to a going railroad.... Id. at 187-88, 41 S.Ct. 93. In Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., 390 U.S. 538, 88 S.Ct. 1239, 20 L.Ed.2d 112 (1968), the defendant sued under FELA was a refrigerator car company that owned, maintained, and repaired re......
-
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Buenrostro
...to cover injuries occurring in the furtherance of the business of interstate rail transportation. Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Exp. Co., 390 U.S. 538, 88 S.Ct. 1239, 20 L.Ed.2d 112 (1968). Plaintiff argues in his brief he "never found a railroad tie which had not been placed within this 'strip'......