Youngstown & ORR Co. v. Halverstodt

Decision Date07 May 1926
Docket NumberNo. 4532.,4532.
Citation12 F.2d 995
PartiesYOUNGSTOWN & O. R. R. CO. v. HALVERSTODT.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Ben H. Davis, of Cleveland, Ohio, and L. P. Metzger, of Salem, Ohio (Metzger & McCarthy, of Salem, Ohio, and Treadway & Marlatt, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Wm. F. Marsteller, of Cleveland, Ohio (Anderson, Lamb & Marsteller and D. F. Anderson, all of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Youngstown & Ohio River Railroad Company owns a line of railroad 37 miles in length wholly within the state of Ohio. Trains are electrically operated on the road. On January 24, 1924, Halverstodt, plaintiff below, was a brakeman on a freight train of the company. The termini of his run were East Liverpool and Leetonia. West Point was an intermediate station. A switch led from the main line at that point to a tipple at the mine of the Saeger Fuel Company. On the opposite side of the track there was a switch siding, known as "long siding." A short distance south of this siding was another siding, known as the "team siding." The train was made up at Leetonia. On its southerly trip it carried some empty coal cars to be set off at various mines en route. It also carried an interstate shipment for East Liverpool. Some 15 or 18 empty cars were to be placed at the Saeger mine. There was room for only 8 to 10 cars in the siding of that company, and it was necessary temporarily to place the others on the long siding. The crew then proceeded to East Liverpool, where, after their work was done, the train was reconstituted and started on its return trip. It carried shipments consigned to points outside the state. On arriving at West Point, the cars that were in the train were placed in the team siding and the two engines pulling them proceeded to the Saeger switch and removed some loaded cars therefrom to the main track. They then went to the long siding and coupled to the empty cars that had been left there in the morning, to be placed on the Saeger switch. While pulling the empty cars out of the siding the engine was moving 4 or 5 miles an hour. It was Halverstodt's duty to set the brakes on the cars. After setting the brakes on the second car, he discovered that, because of a defective passage, it would be necessary to alight from the car and get on the next one from the ground. In attempting to get down, his foot came in contact with a sieve, which threw him out of balance and caused him to be pulled along for several feet. Before he could recover his balance he was brought in contact with some gas tanks that were stacked between the main track and the long siding, within 2 feet of the moving train. This broke his hold and threw him under the car, resulting in serious and permanent injuries, for which he recovered damages.

The questions argued before us are embraced within the single assignment that the court should have sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict, made at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence.

It is first insisted that the motion should have gone, because the requisite jurisdictional facts were not offered in evidence; that is, it was not shown that the plaintiff sustained the injuries sued for while both he and the defendant were engaged in interstate commerce. Defendant was engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce, though the major part of its business was unquestionably intrastate. The train upon which plaintiff was working carried both kinds of shipments on its trip to East Liverpool, and also on the return trip. It was accordingly an interstate train, and the employees thereon were engaged in interstate commerce. Railway Co. v. Hancock, 253 U. S. 284, 40 S. Ct. 512, 64 L. Ed. 907. The question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Favre v. Louisville & N. R. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 24 Enero 1938
    ... ... Co., 197 F. 94; ... Derrington v. Southern Ry. Co., 40 S.W.2d 1069; ... Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Shamblen, 179 S.W. 837; ... Youngstown & O. R. R. Co. v. Halverstodt, 12 F.2d ... 995; Rapid Transit Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 118 S.W. 838; ... Reardon v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 147 A. 544; ... ...
  • Rogers v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Julio 1935
    ... ... and the other interstate employees, on its interstate ... journey." ...           In ... Youngstown & O. Railroad Co. v. Halverstodt, 12 F.2d ... 995, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, following ... the Carr case, held that a brakeman ... ...
  • Rissell v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 Abril 1935
    ...60 L.Ed. 907; New York Cent. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 261, 59 L.Ed. 1298; Morrison v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 57 S.W.2d 775; Youngstown & Ohio v. Halverstodt, 12 F.2d 995. Plaintiff's evidence that the train contained cars was undisputed. Appellant offered nothing to the contrary and the testimon......
  • Cooper v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Marzo 1941
    ... ... Railroad Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 S.Ct. 4; ... Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Parker, 242 ... U.S. 13, 37 S.Ct. 4; Youngstown & O. Railroad Co. v ... Halverstodt, 12 F.2d 995; Davis v. Dowling, 284 ... F. 670; Reap v. Hines, 273 F. 88; Sullivan v ... Wabash Ry ... ...
  • 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