Coviello v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1940
• Docket Number: No. 233.,233.
• Citation: 125 N.J.L. 258,15 A.2d 261
• Parties: COVIELLO v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

15 A.2d 261

125 N.J.L. 258

COVIELLO

v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.

No. 233.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 25, 1940.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Antoinette Coviello, claimant, opposed by the New York Central Railroad Company. To review a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas reversing a judgment of the compensation bureau which dismissed claimant's petition, the employer brings certiorari.

Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed, and writ dismissed.

Argued May term, 1940, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER and PERSKIE, JJ.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Charles W. Broadhurst, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for petitioner-defendant in certiorari.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City (Charles J. Gormley, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondent-plaintiff in certiorari.

BROGAN, Chief Justice.

In this matter, a compensation case, the sole question is whether the decedent, at the time of the accident which resulted in his death, was engaged in interstate transportation. The Compensation Bureau dismissed the petition on the premise that he was so engaged. On appeal, the Pleas reversed this judgment, holding that at the time of the accident the decedent "was not engaged in work so closely related with interstate transportation as to be part thereof," which is the test as to whether or not the Compensation Bureau has jurisdiction. Shanks v. D., L. & W. R. R., 239 U.S. 556, 36 S.Ct. 188, 60 L.Ed. 436, L.R.A. 1916C, 797; Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.S. 74, 52 S.Ct. 59, 76 L.Ed. 173. That the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment is not disputed, the sole question being that which is stated in our opening sentence.

Petitioner's duties for the carrier consisted in trimming wicks of the switch lamps, keeping the glass of the lamps clean, replenishing them with oil and greasing and oiling the switches themselves.

The Weehawken yard, the site of the accident, is described as a classification yard made up of ten smaller yards, used "almost entirely if not exclusively for the movement and classification of freight cars, loaded and empty, moving in transportation between the several states of the United States."

May one in the performance of the duties outlined, without more, be said to be engaged in interstate transportation? We do not think so. Prior to 1915 it might have been so held but from that year we clearly perceive a departure in our Federal Supreme Court from the view it formerly entertained on this point. Compare Pedersen v. D., L. & W. R. R., 1913, 229 U.S. 146, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125, Ann.Cas.1914C, 153, with Shanks v. D., L. & W. R. R., 1915, supra. In the former case it was held that the test was whether the work in question was part of the interstate commerce in...