Krouse v. Lowden

Decision Date25 January 1941
Docket Number35037.
Citation153 Kan. 181,109 P.2d 138
PartiesKROUSE v. LOWDEN et al.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

If a substantial part of work of railroad carrier's employee is in interstate commerce, he is subject to Federal Employers' Liability Act, even though part of work, or of traffic directly affected by his labors, is intrastate in character. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A § 51 et seq.

Whether railroad carrier's employee is under Federal Employers' Liability Act depends on nature of his work when accident occurs, not on nature of work which he generally performs. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.

A railroad employee whose work at time of injury brings him within Federal Employers' Liability Act is not at such time subject to the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.; Gen.St.1935, 44-501 et seq.

Interstate railroad carrier's employee injured in course of employment is subject to Federal Employers' Liability Act if he is engaged, at time of injury, in interstate transportation or in work so closely related thereto as to be practically a part thereof. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.

The interpretation placed on federal statutes by the federal courts, and particularly by United States Supreme Court, is controlling on state courts.

The question whether in light of established facts an interstate railroad carrier's employee was at time of his injury subject to Federal Employers' Liability Act and not the State Workmen's Compensation Act is one of law. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.; Gen.St.1935, 44-501 et seq.

Where for 16 hours before accident in which "engine herder" was injured by slipping on steps of switch engine, engine had been exclusively engaged in making up interstate trains and had then been taken to roundhouse for routine inspection and servicing, after which it had been placed on track to receive required attention from engine herders at which time it had been assigned to further work in making up trains containing intrastate and interstate cars the injury occurred in "interstate transportation" making Federal Employers' Liability Act applicable. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.

An interstate railroad by filing report of accident with Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and furnishing medical and hospital attention to injured employee was not "estopped" from denying Commissioner's jurisdiction or from asserting that Federal Employers' Liability Act controlled. Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.; Gen.St.1935, 44-501 et seq., 44-557.

1. An employee of an interstate common carrier by rail, injured in the course of his employment, is subject to the Federal Employers' Liability Act if he is engaged at the time of the injury in interstate transportation or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it.

2. If a substantial part of the work of such employee is in interstate commerce, under the test above stated, he is subject to such federal act even though part of his work or of the traffic directly affected by his labors is intrastate in character.

3. Whether such employee is under the federal act depends upon the nature of his work at the time the accident occurs and not upon the nature of the work which he generally or usually performs.

4. A railroad employee whose employment at the time of an injury brings him within the federal act is not at such time subject to the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act.

5. The issue of whether, in the light of established facts, such employee was subject at the time of such injury to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, is a question of law.

6. The interpretation placed upon a federal statute by the federal courts, and particularly by the United States Supreme Court, is controlling upon state courts.

7. The record is examined in an action by a railroad "engine herder" for relief under the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act and it is held that under the facts fully stated in the opinion, his employment at the time he was injured brought him within the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and that, therefore, he was not, at such time, subject to the workmen's compensation law of this state.

Appeal from District Court, Wyandotte County, Division No. 2; Willard M. Benton, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John O. Krouse, claimant, opposed by Frank O. Lowden and others, trustees of the estate of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, employer and self-insurer. An award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in favor of claimant was confirmed by the district court, and employer appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

J. E. DuMars and Clayton M. Davis, both of Topeka, and Edwin S. McAnany and Thomas M. Van Cleave, both of Kansas City, for appellants.

Charles S. Schnider, of Kansas City, and Roach & Brenner, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

HOCH Justice.

This proceeding was brought under the provisions of the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act. Gen.St.1935, 44-501 et seq. The claimant was a railroad employee. The railway company, respondent, appeals from a judgment of the district court confirming an award made by the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

The principal contention urged by the appellants is that at the time of the accident the injured employee was engaged in interstate commerce within the purview of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., and that being within the provisions of the federal act the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter. The appellants also contend that the award was arbitrary, excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

John O. Krouse had been employed by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company for several years as an "engine herder." His duties were to look after switch engines in service, to keep the fire going, the steam pressure up, the tanks and boilers supplied with water, the engines oiled and cleaned--in short, to keep them in stand-by condition ready to be taken over by the operating crew. On the morning of April 17, 1938, he was performing his duties in connection with engine number 301 in the terminal yards of the company in Armourdale, Wyandotte county, Kansas, the engine having been placed on the track near a water crane for that purpose while awaiting the operating crew to take over. He had put water in the tank of the engine and had climbed down to the cab. He then started to come down the steps of the locomotive when he slipped, fell to the ground and fractured the heel bone of his left foot. The injury required medical and hospital attention; the foot was placed in a cast and it was not until August or September that he was released for light work by the company physician. There was testimony that even then he was not able to continue his work, being unable to stand on the injured foot for very long on account of the soreness and pain.

Claim for compensation was filed with the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on February 25, 1939. The parties stipulated that the relation of employer and employee existed; that the respondent is a self-insurer; that the claimant met with an accidental injury in the course of his employment; that medical service was furnished to the claimant by respondent but that no compensation had been paid. It was also stipulated that the questions at issue were the weekly wage of the claimant; the number of working days per week; whether the respondent had notice of the injury; whether claim for compensation was made as required by law; whether the parties are governed by the act; the extent of the claimant's injury and disability and the amount, if any, to which he may be entitled.

Hearing was held before the compensation commissioner on March 21, 1939. At the conclusion of the evidence the respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the claimant and respondent were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident and that therefore claimant's remedy, if any, was under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

The compensation commissioner made an award in favor of the claimant based upon a finding that he had suffered "a disability which is permanent and total" entitling him to four hundred fifteen weeks' compensation at the rate of $14.45 a week. The respondent was also directed to "tender to, and if accepted, furnish to claimant such additional medical treatments by a competent orthopedic surgeon as will aid in curing and relieving claimant from his effects of his injury, respondent's liability for all medical and hospital services rendered not to exceed five hundred dollars."

In addition to narration of facts and reference to portions of the testimony, the compensation commissioner in his decision discussed at some length the question of whether claimant was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident saying in part: "At the time John O. Krouse was injured, the engine was standing on the siding or track near the roundhouse of respondent company in Kansas City, Kansas. At that particular time it was not engaged in switching cars. No crew had charge of the engine. In fact, the only person on the engine at the time was the claimant herein, and certainly the engine could hardly of itself be engaged in the business of switching cars in either interstate or intrastate traffic. The engine was at the time of the accident standing perfectly still and could not in the ordinary course of events move except by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Ritchie v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1944
    ... ... on federal questions are binding on state courts has been ... recognized and followed in this state. See Schaefer v ... Lowden, 147 Kan. 520, 78 P.2d 48, Syl. ¶ 2. The ... decisions generally are in conflict whether a state court is ... bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts on federal ... questions. See 147 A.L.R. 857. In Krouse v. Lowden, ... 153 Kan. 181, 109 P.2d 138, Syl. ¶ 6, it was held the ... interpretation placed upon a federal statute by the federal ... courts, ... ...
  • Kaw Paving Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Hoisting and Portable, Local No. 101, A. F. of L.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1955
    ...regardless of views of state courts even though such decisions are inconsistent with their prior decisions. See, e. g., Krouse v. Lowden, 153 Kan. 181, 109 P.2d 138, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 633, 62 S.Ct. 67, 86 L.Ed. 508, rehearing denied 314 U.S. 710, 62 S.Ct. 174, 86 L.Ed. 566. See, al......
  • Allen v. Craig
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 1977
    ...whether a state court is bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts on federal questions. (See 147 A.L.R. 857.) In Krouse v. Lowden, 153 Kan. 181, syl. 6, 109 P.2d 138, it was held the interpretation placed upon a federal statute by the federal courts, and particularly by the United......
  • Madison v. Key Work Clothes, Inc.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1957
    ...regarded as an admission by the carrier that the compensation commissioner has jurisdiction to make a compensation award. Krouse v. Lowden, 153 Kan. 181, 109 P.2d 138. It was held in the Krouse case that filing a report of accident with the Kansas workmen's compensation commissioner, and fu......
  • 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