Knorr v. Central Railroad of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 26 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 26 |
| Citation | 110 A. 797,268 Pa. 172 |
| Parties | Knorr v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 12, 1920
Appeal, No. 26, Jan. T., 1920, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1919, No. 299, reversing decision of Workmen's Compensation Board which had reversed the report of the referee awarding compensation, in case of Edna May Knorr v. Central Railroad of New Jersey. Affirmed.
Appeal from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board. Before STRAUSS, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
The court reversed the decision of the Compensation Board, which had reversed the award of the referee. The defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was judgment of court, quoting it.
The judgment is affirmed.
Jacob C. Loose, for appellant, cited: Erie R.R. v Winfield, 244 U.S. 170; Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co. 263 Pa. 113.
Roger J. Dever, for appellee, cited: Erie R.R. v Winfield, 244 U.S. 170; North Carolina R.R. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Hench v. Penna. R.R., 246 Pa. 1; Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177.
Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and KEPHART, JJ.
Wheeler Knorr was employed by the Central Railroad of New Jersey as an extra fireman. He lived at Mountain Top, Luzerne County; his work commencing at Ashley, sixteen miles distant. The company furnished him a system pass over its railroad and a plane train (an independent operation of the company) to ride to and from his work. On November 12th, he was called to assist in taking a train from Ashley to Taylor, returning the same day with a train made up partly of cars shipped from points outside the State, and thus he was engaged in interstate commerce. Upon arriving at Ashley, decedent, with other members of the crew, registered and checked out, the day's working having been ended. After attending to some personal business in the town, Knorr proceeded by way of the plane train to reach his home, and while riding in a car on this train was accidentally killed, having been struck by an overhead bridge. A claim was made by his widow for compensation, which was allowed by the referee. On appeal to the board, by agreement, the same evidence taken before the referee was used and it was found "that the employer and employees were at the time of the accident both engaged in interstate commerce . . . . and . . . . this board has no jurisdiction." This conclusion of law was reversed by the court below and the employer takes this appeal, urging that deceased was not killed in the course of employment or if so he was engaged in interstate commerce when injured and appellant would not be liable under the Compensation Act.
In accepting and using free transportation to and from work Knorr was not to be regarded as a passenger but as an employee, in this case under general employment, which began when he boarded the train at Mountain Top and continued until he entered the particular premises where he was to perform the special work designated by the employer. This service from the place of residence to the place of work, using the facilities furnished by the company, was useful to the company; and the place of residence, while a matter of convenience to him, was nevertheless beneficial to the employer, being within easy reach of his place of work, and appellant would require it to be so. His transportation may be regarded as a privilege incidental to the contract of service, if it is not a part of his compensation: Vick v. N.Y., etc., R.R. Co., 95 N.Y. 267, 271; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 67 F. 524, 526; Ionnone v. N.Y., etc., R.R. Co., 21 R.I. 452, 454. The pass was therefore beneficial to both employer and employee and, when his labors were over, the mere fact that he stopped for a short time to transact business in the town, would not break the continuity of his general employment which arose after his special labor had ceased, when he had registered, checked out, and left the premises to go to a railroad independent, disconnected, and separated from the line upon which he was working. True, while off the premises on his journey to the plane train, or in the town, his...
To continue reading
Request your trial