Erie R. Co. v. Margue
| Decision Date | 06 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 4781.,4781. |
| Citation | 23 F.2d 664 |
| Parties | ERIE R. CO. v. MARGUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
B. D. Holt and E. A. Foote, both of Cleveland, Ohio (Cook, McGowan, Foote, Bushnell & Burgess, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Edward Lurie, of Cleveland, Ohio (Winch, Lurie, Addams & Burke, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
This suit was brought under the Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59; Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) for injuries which defendant in error, the plaintiff below, sustained while working on the railroad tracks of plaintiff in error, the defendant below. The defense was that plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor, the Dixon Construction & Repair Company, it being admitted that, if he was employed by the defendant railroad company, his claim was properly founded on the federal act. The case turns on the effect of a contract between the railroad and construction companies.
Under the terms of the contract the construction company undertook, with its own employees, to maintain the tracks, roadway, and structures of the railroad company in Ohio. The latter company agreed to furnish to the construction company, without charge, the tools, camp cars, laborers' quarters, train equipment, work train service, and telegraph service needed for the work, to carry over its lines all needed materials and supplies, to pay for the labor and material used in the work, and to pay the construction company for its services 5 per cent. of the cost of the labor and material so used. The contract was to continue for one year, but either party could terminate it upon 30 days' notice. The railroad company could also terminate it, and take possession and control of the work upon 24 hours' notice, if in the judgment of its general manager such termination was desirable or in the interest of the company. The construction company was required to comply with the state Compensation Laws of Ohio (Gen. Code, § 1465 — 37 et seq.), and the railroad company agreed to pay to the construction company the cost of the insurance thereunder, and also all sums that it was required to pay, whether under such laws or not, on account of injury to or death of its employees.
Section 5 of the Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA § 55; Comp. St. § 8661) declares that "any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hebert v. California Oil Company
...circumventing the Jones Act in particular, thus being violative of the express provisions of 45 U.S.C.A. § 55. Compare: Erie R. Co. v. Margue, 6 Cir. 1928, 23 F.2d 664; Eddings v. Collins Pine Co., D.C.Colo.1956, 140 F.Supp. 622; Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 5 Cir. 1959, 265 F.2d 75,......
-
Downs v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...find support in many cases. Cimorelli v. New York Cent. R. Co., 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 575; McComb v. McKay, 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 40; Erie R. Co. v. Margue, 6 Cir., 23 F.2d 664; Wabash R. R. Co. v. Finnegan, D.C., 67 F.Supp. 94; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Roth, 6 Cir., 163 F.2d 161; Pennsylvania R. Co. v......
-
Culver v. Kurn
... ... Thompson v. Missouri ... Pacific, 15 F.2d 28; State ex rel. St. Louis Car Co ... v. Hughes, 152 S.W.2d 193; Erie Railroad Co. v ... Margue, 23 F.2d 664; Miller v. Busey, 186 S.W ... 983; Davis v. Crane, 12 F.2d 355; Missouri Digest, ... Trial, sec. 191; ... ...
-
Hopson v. Texaco, Inc.
...560 (5 Cir. 1965); West v. United States, 256 F.2d 671 (3 Cir. 1958); 2 Norris, The Law of Seamen § 688 (2 ed. 1962). 9 Erie R. Co. v. Margue, 23 F.2d 664 (6 Cir. 1928); Eddings v. Collins Pine Co., 140 F.Supp. 622 1 The standards for determining an employer's liability under the FELA have ......