Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Nathan Parker
| Decision Date | 13 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 330,330 |
| Citation | 242 U.S. 13,37 S.Ct. 4,61 L.Ed. 119 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. NATHAN PARKER, as Administrator of the Estate of Edward Parker |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Benjamin D. Warfield for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edward C. O'Rear, J. M. Robsion, and B. G. Williams for defendant in error.
The plaintiff's intestate was a fireman upon a switching engine which was moving upon a switch track. A caboose stood upon the main track so near to where the engine moved that the deceased struck it and was killed. His administrator brought this action against the railroad, the plaintiff in error, for causing the intestate's death, and got a verdict, which, it is admitted, cannot be sustained if the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. The dealings of the state courts with that question are the ground for the present writ of error. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the court of appeals. 165 Ky. 658, 177 S. W. 465.
The business upon which the deceased was engaged at the moment was transferring an empty car from one switch track to another. This car was not moving in interstate commerce, and that fact was treated as conclusive by the court of appeals. In this the court was in error, for if, as there was strong evidence to show, and as the court seemed to assume, this movement was simply for the purpose of reaching and moving an interstate car, the purpose would control and the business would be interstate. The difference is marked between a mere expectation that the act done would be followed by other work of a different character, as in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 478, 58 L. ed. 1051, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, 10 N. C. C. A. 153, and doing the act for the purpose of furthering the later work. See New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260, 263, 59 L. ed. 1298, 1299, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
... ... Jolly, deceased, against ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and ... Louisville & N. R ... Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13, 37 S.Ct. 4, 61 L.Ed. 119; ... Kinzell v ... ...
-
State Board of Equalization v. Blind Bull Coal Co.
...v. Edwards, 262 U.S. 66; Superior Oil Company v. Mississippi, 280 U.S. 390; Standard Oil Company v. Johnson, 92 P.2d 470; Louisville Company v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13; Southern Pacific Company v. Gallagher, 83 L.Ed. Currin v. Wallace, 83 L.Ed. 413. The judgment below should be affirmed. Ewing ......
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...to the work of constructing the fill and did not change the character of the employment. The object of the work, as pointed out in the Parker case, is It follows that respondent does not come within the provisions of the federal statute, and that the action cannot be maintained. The judgmen......
-
Middleton v. Texas Power Light Co
...v. Del., Lack. & West. R. R., 239 U. S. 556, 559, 36 Sup. Ct. 188, 60 L. Ed. 436, L. R. A. 1916C, 797; Louisville & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U. S. 13, 37 Sup. Ct. 4, 61 L. Ed. 119; Erie R. R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303, 306, 37 Sup. Ct. 116, 61 L. Ed. 319; Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett......