Glover v. Union Pac. R. Co., 1030.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 1030.,1030. |
| Citation | 21 F. Supp. 618 |
| Parties | GLOVER v. UNION PAC. R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Anderson, Bowen & Anderson, of Pocatello, Idaho, for plaintiff.
H. B. Thompson, of Pocatello, Idaho, for defendant.
The only question we have to consider as presented by the demurrer is whether Lennis Glover, deceased, at the time of his injury which resulted in his death was engaged in or employed in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. ?? 51-59. The question must be decided in the light of the particular facts appearing in the complaint with a view of determining whether at the time of Glover's injury he was an employee engaged in interstate business or employment or engaged in an act which is connected directly and immediately with such interstate business to form a part incident thereof. The facts alleged essential to the disposition of the question are in substance that the defendant was at the time of the injury a common carrier of passengers and freight engaged in both intrastate and interstate business. Prior to and at the time of the injury Glover was employed by the defendant as a "Brakeman." Preceding the day of the injury which was on March 19, 1937, Glover served as a brakeman for the defendant on a trip from Bliss, Idaho, to Minidoka, Idaho, and continued to work upon the train until he arrived at Minidoka at 1:10 in the morning of March 19, 1937, and, upon arriving at Minidoka, he was notified by the defendant, through its crew dispatcher at Pocatello, Idaho, that he had been "bumped" or displaced from employment at Minidoka, and it became his duty as a brakeman upon defendant's train to return to Pocatello, his home terminal on the 19th of March, for the purpose of bidding in or exercising his seniority right and taking another train out of Pocatello, which he alleges he had a right to and was required to do under his contract of employment with the defendant. On the same day that he was displaced from employment and while having a pass from and being paid wages by the defendant he boarded the first freight train of the defendant at Minidoka to return to Pocatello, and while in the caboose another train of the defendant ran into the rear of the train which he boarded and wrecked and destroyed the caboose and injured him to such an extent that he died and his body practically consumed in flames.
The train on which he returned was engaged in interstate commerce.
The provision of the Federal Employers' Liability Act upon which the cause of action is based is section 51, title 45, U.S. C.A., and it is there provided: "Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States or Territories, or between any of the States and Territories, or between the District of Columbia and any of the States or Territories or between the District of Columbia or any of the States or Territories and any foreign nation or nations, shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment."
No difficulty should be had in determining what is the universal interpretation of the act by the courts, for we find that an employee is not engaged in his occupation when he is coming away from the place where his work is carried on, and off the premises of the employer, except when he is injured when in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sassaman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Williams, 5 Cir., 284 F. 262. Cf. Glover v. Union Pac. R. Co., D.C., 21 F. Supp. 618, appeal dismissed upon stipulation, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 1015, Nor do the cases of North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248, 34......
-
Griffith v. Gardner
... ... in interstate commerce. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v ... Coogan, 271 U.S. 472, 46 S.Ct. 564; Peck v. St ... v. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co., 167 Mo. 206, 66 S.W. 965, 967), and ... (d) ... Schorb, 151 F.2d 361; Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co., 134 F.2d 860; Tennant v. Peoria & P.U. Ry. Co., ... time of the fatal accident. Glover v. Union Pac. R ... Co., 21 F.Supp. 618, Appeal ... ...
-
Lloyd v. Alton R. Co.
... ... of it. Benson v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 334 Mo. 851, 69 ... S.W.2d 656; Peterson v. D., L. & W. R ... Litchfield, etc., R. Co., 94 ... S.W.2d 375, 339 Mo. 1; Glover v. Union Pac. R. Co., ... 21 F.Supp. 618; McKay v. Monongahela R. Co., ... Central ... Vermont Ry. Co., 87 L.Ed. 1030, 63 S.Ct. 1062. (4) ... Plaintiff's Instruction 2 is not subject to the ... ...
-
Elliott v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.
...396, 161 S.W.2d 232, second appeal Mo.Sup., 182 S.W.2d 63; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Williams, 5 Cir., 284 F. 262; Glover v. Union Pac. R. Co., D.C., 21 F.Supp. 618; Northwestern Pac. R. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 73 Cal.App.2d 367, 166 P.2d 334, 335, and cases cited. Consult also Ca......