Delaware, Lackawanna Western Railroad Company v. Matt Yurkonis
| Decision Date | 21 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 852,852 |
| Citation | 59 L.Ed. 1397,35 S.Ct. 902,238 U.S. 439 |
| Parties | DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA, & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. MATT YURKONIS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William S. Jenney, Everett Warren, and F. W. Thomson for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. George C. Holt, William Montague Geer, Jr., and John Vernon Bouvier, Jr., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 440 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This case was brought in the supreme court of New York to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant railroad company. The complaint charged that the injuries were received while the plaintiff was employed in the defendant's colliery in Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. As to the manner of injury, the complaint averred that while the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant in its colliery, and was engaged in and about the performance of his duties, preparing and setting off a charge of dynamite for the purpose of blasting coal, the explosive gases which accumulated at the place where plaintiff was working suddenly ignited and exploded, causing a squib attached to the charge of dynamite to catch fire and to be immediately consumed, so that the charge of dynamite was exploded and discharged, and as a result thereof the plaintiff received great, severe, and permanent injuries.
The complaint also charged the carelessness and negligence of the defendant in failing to provide and keep a safe place for the plaintiff to work, and certain other acts unnecessary to be repeated, but alleged to be of a negligent character. The complaint also charged a violation of the law of the state of Pennsylvania, providing for the health and safety of persons employed in or about the coal mines of that state. Upon the petition of the railroad company the case was removed to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, where trial was had and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
The petition for removal alleged that the plaintiff, at the beginning of the suit and since, resided in Richmond county, New York, and was, at the time of the beginning of the action, and still was, an alien and citizen of a foreign country, and that the defendant railroad company was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. After the removal of the case to the United States district court, the defendant filed an answer, taking issue upon the allegations of the complaint. Five months after the removal, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contained the same allegations as to the manner of the injury, and allegations as to the common law and statutory liability of the defendant. The amended complaint added certain allegations wherein it was alleged that the defendant, for the purpose of its railroad, owned, managed, and operated a certain mine or colliery known as the 'Pettibone' colliery in the state of Pennsylvania, in which plaintiff was employed at the time of the injury, and where, at all of the times covered by the complaint, the defendant did and still does mine and prepare anthracite coal for use in its locomotives and engines and other equipment used in its business as a common carrier in interstate commerce. That at the time of receiving the injury plaintiff was employed by the defendant at said mine or colliery in such interstate commerce. The amended complaint did not change the allegations as to the manner in which plaintiff received his injuries. The defendant took issue upon the amended complaint and the case came on for trial. In the course of the trial, during examination of a witness, while evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Atlanta v. National Bituminous Coal Com'n
...466, 80 L.Ed. 688. 7 Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172, 178, 43 S.Ct. 526, 67 L.Ed. 929; Delaware, Lack. & Western R. R. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439, 35 S.Ct. 902, 59 L.Ed. 1397; United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 407, 42 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed. 975, 27 A.L.R. 762;......
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission
...v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101, 3 A. L. R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 35 S. Ct. 902, 59 L. Ed. 1397. See, also, West v. Kansas Nat. Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, 31 S. Ct. 564, 55 L. Ed. 716, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1193......
-
United States v. Eason Oil Co.
...things, goods, chattels, merchandise, or persons. All these may therefore be regulated." In Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 35 S. Ct. 902, 904, 59 L. Ed. 1397, which action was brought by the plaintiff below for damages resulting from an injury receiv......
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...... CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & St. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of ... trestle and to support the track of a railroad. company engaged in the transportation of both ...141, 52 L.Ed. 297;. Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 229 U.S. 146,. Ann. Cas. 1914C, ...908;. Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439,. 35 S.Ct. 902, 59 L.Ed. 1397; ......
-
Public Rights, Private Privileges, and Article Iii
...the prohibited ages.").263. Id. at 276.264. Id. at 271-72.265. Id. at 272 (citing Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439 (1915)).266. Id. at 277-78 (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("It would not be argued today that the power to regulate does not include the power to pro......