Lynch v. Boston & M.R.R.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1917
• Parties: LYNCH v. BOSTON & M. R. R.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

227 Mass. 123

116 N.E. 401

LYNCH

v.BOSTON & M. R. R.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

May 25, 1917.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; John H. Hardy, Judge.

Action by Julia Lynch against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Verdict for defendant. Case reported. Exceptions overruled.

1. COMMERCE k8(6)-EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT-EXCLUSIVENESS OF REMEDY.

Where a railroad employé is injured while engaged in interstate commerce, the remedy is under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [U. S. Comp. St. 1916, ss 8657-8665]), to the exclusion of state statutory remedies.

2. COMMERCE k27(6)-EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.

Where a railroad station employé was killed by a train carrying interstate passengers and mail while attempting to pass in front of it to secure mail from it intended for his station, the parties were engaged in interstate commerce within the federal Employers' Liability Act.

Ernest Foss, of Newburyport, for plaintiff.

Henry F. Hurlburt and Carroll A. Wilson, both of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action brought under the Massachusetts Employers' Liability Act, St. 1909, c. 514, to recover for the death of Jeremiah Lynch, the plaintiff's husband, who was struck and instantly killed by a train at Newburyport in this Commonwealth, on August 5, 1915, while in the employ of the defendant.

The train which struck Lynch was a passenger train running from Portland, Me., to Boston. It was a regular mail train leaving mail from Portland and way stations at Newburyport, where it was due at about 3:17 o'clock in the morning; the last stops of the train previous to reaching Newburyport were at Biddeford, Me., and at Portsmouth, N. H.

The passenger station at Newburyport is located on the southerly side of the tracks, of which there are three: The southerly track being used for eastbound trains, that in the middle for westbound trains, and the northerly track for branch trains running between points within the state. About two hundred and seventy feet west of the passenger station, Washington street, a public highway,crosses the railroad tracks at grade. At this crossing gates are maintained by the defendant.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the judge of the superior court before whom the case was tried ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant ‘for want of jurisdiction’ on the ground that at the time the deceased was killed he was engaged in interstate commerce.

The employé, Lynch, from the year 1903 until his death, had been employed at the defendant's passenger station in Newburyport. His hours of service were from seven o'clock in the evening until seven o'clock in the morning. His duties were to sweep out the station and have it lighted, ‘to attend to any baggage which might be left by the train belonging to passengers from points in New Hampshire and Maine, to see to putting onto the train any baggage of passengers going from Newburyport to Boston, to receive from the mail clerks upon this train the mail bags destined for Newburyport, and to take them from the mail car into the baggage room and there lock them up for the remainder of the night, until they were taken care of by other employés. No one but Lynch had looked after the mail from this train since 1903. This was the only occasion when Lynch had anything to do with the mail.’ It was also a part of Lynch's duties to attend the Washington Street crossing and raise and lower the gates. In describing the decedent's duties upon the approach of the 3:17 a. m. train above referred to, the bill of exceptions states:

‘At the approach of this mail train from Portland it was Lynch's duty to lower the crossing gates as upon the approach of any other train, to cross the three tracks in front of the train and to present himself at the door of the mail car from which the mail for Newburyport was passed out. This train would be upon the middle one of the three tracks, and in receiving the mail Lynch would stand on or near the track nearest to the station.’

On the northerly side of the Washington Street crossing and near the gates there was a small building or shanty which was occupied by Lynch when not engaged in the performance of his duties. The gates were operated from a point directly in front of this building.

The circumstances attending the fatal accident as described by the engineer of the train, who was called as a witness for the plaintiff, are as follows:

‘When the front of his engine was within about thirty feet of the crossing, he saw a man [whom he] later identified as Lynch, with a lantern in his hand, come under the gates on the North side of the crossing, and start to run fast diagonally across the crossing and the man passed from his view in front of the engine, as his engine was going over the crossing. The engine was stopped at its usual point on the track.’

The body of Lynch was found about ten feet westerly from the westerly side of the planking of the crossing and upon the eastbound rail of the track nearest the station; there were marks upon the crossing planking and gravel to the west thereof indicating that something had been dragged from the crossing to the spot where the body was found. There was no indication that the body had gone under the wheels.

[1] It is settled that if an employé of a railroad suffers injury or death while engaged in interstate commerce, recovery cannot be had under a state statute for such injury or death, but that the exclusive remedy is under the federal Employers' Liability Act. As was said in St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, at page 158, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, at page 652, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156;

‘If the federal statute was applicable, the state statute was excluded by reason of the supremacy of the former under the National Constitution.’

In Corbett v. B. & M. R. R., 219 Mass. 351, 107 N. E. 60, recently decided by this court, it is...