Aranda v. Southern Pac. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1955
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Roque ARANDA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Sac. 6521.

Page 875

282 P.2d 875

44 Cal.2d 543

Roque ARANDA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

Sac. 6521.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

April 29, 1955.

Devlin, Diepenbrock & Wulff, Sacramento, and Arthur B. Dunne, San Francisco, for appellant.

Nathaniel S. Colley and Mamoru Sakuma, Sacramento, for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., seeking recovery for injuries sustained while working as a molder of freight car wheels in a foundry operated by defendant railroad company. He set forth three causes of action in his complaint, alleging that his injuries resulted, first, from negligent maintenance of the second, from negligent maintenance of the crane, and, third, from failure to provide him with a safe place to work. The court, sitting without a jury, determined that the federal act was applicable, and the case then proceeded to trial before a jury on the other issues. A verdict was returned for plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly. Defendant appeals, contending that the federal act was not applicable and that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant submission to the jury of the issues raised by the third cause of action.

Applicability of the Federal Employers' Liability Act depends on whether plaintiff's duties were in the furtherance of interstate commerce or affected it "in any way directly or closely and substantially". Gileo v. Southern Pacific Co., Cal., 282 P.2d 872; 45 U.S.C.A. § 51. The freight car wheels which he molded were manufactured in accordance with annual orders from defendant's store department. Although the amount of production varied according to current demand, the wheels were not made for particular railroad cars and were taken, when completed, to defendant's storehouse. A few were sold to other companies, but almost all were sold to the Southern Pacific Equipment Company, a subsidiary of defendant, for construction of new cars or were used by defendant for maintenance purposes, including replacement of wheels on cars which defendant already operated in interstate commerce.

Federal coverage has been extended to employees injured while performing duties similar to those involved here. Shelton v. Thomson, 7 Cir., 148 F.2d 1 (operating a crane, located in a storehouse, to lift freight car wheels used to repair cars, including some which were operated in interstate commerce); Ericksen v. Southern Pacific Co., 39 Cal.2d 374, 246 P.2d 642 (inspecting lumber for fitness as railroad ties, some of which would cross state lines and would be used to repair tracks carrying interstate traffic); Trucco v. Erie R. Co., 353 Pa. 320, 45 A.2d 20 (constructing 'strap hangers' used to replace parts of engines, some of which were devoted to interstate commerce). In the present case, some of the wheels which plaintiff molded were to be used in repairing railroad cars moving in interstate commerce, and the importance of his work to that commerce was not reduced by the fact that the wheels were temporarily stored before being used. We are of the opinion that plaintiff's duties furthered interstate commerce. He is, therefore, considered to have been employed by defendant in interstate commerce and is entitled to the benefits of the act. Gileo v. Southern Pacific Co., Cal., ...