Erie Railroad Company v. James Welsh, No. 29

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPitney
Citation242 U.S. 303,37 S.Ct. 116,61 L.Ed. 319
PartiesERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES T. WELSH
Docket NumberNo. 29
Decision Date18 December 1916

242 U.S. 303
37 S.Ct. 116
61 L.Ed. 319
ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

JAMES T. WELSH.

No. 29.
Argued October 25, 1916.
Decided December 18, 1916.

Messrs. Leroy A. Manchester, C. D. Hine, James B. Kennedy, and John W. Ford for plaintiff in error.

Mr. William R. Stewart for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

The supreme court of Ohio (89 Ohio St. 81, 105 N. E. 189) affirmed a circuit court judgment which sustained a judgment re-

Page 304

covered in a court of common pleas by Welsh against the Erie Railroad Company for damages on account of personal injuries suffered by him while in its employ as a yard conductor in the Brier Hill yard, near Youngstown, Ohio; overruling the contention of the defendant (now plaintiff in error) that by certain rulings of the trial court defendant had been deprived of rights secured to it by the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908 (chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, Comp. Stat. 19§3, § 8657).

Plaintiff's case was that, on March 7, 1911, about 11 o'clock P. M., while in the performance of his duties, he attempted to alight from the footboard of a slowly moving locomotive; that in so doing he stepped upon a pulley wheel of an interlocking mechanism situate between the tracks, and then covered with snow, and the turning of the wheel under his weight caused his foot to become entangled in the interlocking wires, as a result of which he fell partly under the locomotive and sustained serious injuries. The negligence attributed to defendant was the failure properly to guard or cover the wires and the pulley wheel. There was evidence tending to show such a knowledge on plaintiff's part of the nature and character of the interlocking apparatus and its location between the tracks, and such a knowledge and appreciation of the dangers incident thereto, as to bring into play the defense of assumption of risk (Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 503, 58 L. ed. 1062, 1069, L.R.A.1915C, 1, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 635, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475, 8 N. C. C. A. 834; Jacobs v. Southern R. Co. 241 U. S. 229, 234, 30 L. ed. 970, 976, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 588), if the case came within the Federal act; and this depended upon whether plaintiff was employed by defendant in interstate commerce at the time he received his injuries. Defendant's fourth request was for the submission to the jury of the question whether plaintiff was employed in such commerce, with an appropriate instruction embodying the rule as to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
151 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S.Ct. 646; Chicago, B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 319. We have given what the supreme court of the United States had to say with reference to whether the federal act applies in the cas......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Junio 1934
    ...U.S. 296, 52 Sup. Ct. 151; Ill. Cent. Railroad Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 Sup. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 37 Sup. Ct. 116, 61 L. Ed. 319; Middleton v. Railroad Co., 61 Fed. (2d) 929; Allen v. Railroad Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 884; Milburn v. Railroad C......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Julio 1937
    ...Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Illinois Cent. Railroad Co. v. Peery, 242 U.S. 292, 37 Sup. Ct. 122, 61 L. Ed. 309; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303; Minneapolis & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358; Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.......
  • Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 10 Septiembre 1931
    ...of reaching and moving an interstate car, the purpose would control and the business would be interstate." In Erie R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303, 37 S. Ct. 116, 118, 61 L. Ed. 319, the court said: "The question remains whether he was performing an act so directly and immediately connected ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
151 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S.Ct. 646; Chicago, B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 319. We have given what the supreme court of the United States had to say with reference to whether the federal act applies in the cas......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Junio 1934
    ...U.S. 296, 52 Sup. Ct. 151; Ill. Cent. Railroad Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 Sup. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 37 Sup. Ct. 116, 61 L. Ed. 319; Middleton v. Railroad Co., 61 Fed. (2d) 929; Allen v. Railroad Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 884; Milburn v. Railroad C......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Julio 1937
    ...Harrington, 241 U.S. 177; Illinois Cent. Railroad Co. v. Peery, 242 U.S. 292, 37 Sup. Ct. 122, 61 L. Ed. 309; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303; Minneapolis & St. L. Railroad Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353, 37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358; Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.......
  • Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 10 Septiembre 1931
    ...of reaching and moving an interstate car, the purpose would control and the business would be interstate." In Erie R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303, 37 S. Ct. 116, 118, 61 L. Ed. 319, the court said: "The question remains whether he was performing an act so directly and immediately connected ......
  • 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