Lincks v. Erie R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1918
• Docket Number: No. 9.,9.
• Citation: 103 A. 176,91 N.J.Law 166
• Parties: LINCKS v. ERIE R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

103 A. 176

91 N.J.Law 166

LINCKS

v. ERIE R. CO.

No. 9.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 4, 1918.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceedings by Regina Lincks, administratrix, to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Henry W. Lincks, the employe, opposed by the Erie Railroad Company, the employer. From an award of compensation, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Frank G. Turner, of Jersey City, for appellant. George S. Hobart, of Jersey City, for appellee.

GUMMERE, C. J. Henry W. Lincks, who was an employe of the respondent, the Erie Railroad Company, was killed on December 24, 1914, in the company's Jersey City yard, while engaged in the duties of his employment. The appellant, who is his administratrix, filed a petition in the Hudson county court of common pleas to recover remuneration for his death, under the New Jersey Workmen's ">Compensation Act (chapter 95, Laws of 1911). The company in its answer filed to the petition set up as its principal defense that it was an interstate carrier, and that the plaintiff's intestate at the time of his death was employed by the company in such commerce, and that therefore the petitioner's sole remedy was under the federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908. The finding of the court was that the deceased at the time of the accident was not engaged in a service which was part of interstate commerce, and therefore awarded the plaintiff the compensation allowed under the New Jersey statute. The respondent company thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court, and that tribunal, after an examination of the testimony sent up on the appeal, determined that the finding of the common pleas that the deceased was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his death had no support in the testimony submitted, but that, on the contrary, the proofs demonstrated that he was then engaged in such commerce. This fact being found by the court of review, the judgment belowwas ">reversed upon the ground that the petitioner's only remedy was under the federal statute. The present appeal is from the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The decedent was employed by the railroad company in its yard at Jersey City.

His principal duty was to take care of the cab lights upon the various engines which came into the yard and keep them in proper condition for use. Some of these engines were used in interstate, and others in intrastate, commerce. It may be inferred from the testimony that the decedent was run down and killed while crossing one of the yard tracks on his way from an engine, the lamps, of which he had been putting in order, to another, the lamps of which needed care. There is absolutely nothing in the testimony, however, to show whether the engine upon which he had just completed his work or the engine to which he was going was engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce. It is true that the yard was devoted to both kinds of commerce, but that fact is immaterial. In the case of Illinois Central R. R. v. Behrens,...