McNeill v. Director General of Railroads

• Decision Date: 06 February 1922
• Docket Number: 29
• Citation: 272 Pa. 525,116 A. 476
• Parties: McNeill, Appellant, v. Director General of Railroads
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

116 A. 476

272 Pa. 525

McNeill, Appellant, v. Director General of Railroads

No. 29

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 6, 1922

Argued January 4, 1922

Appeal, No. 29, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1920, No. 644, affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, in case of Frances M. McNeill v. Director General of Railroads, United States Railroad Administration of Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co. Affirmed.

Appeal from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board. Before BARRATT, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Appeal dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was judgment, quoting it.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Harry A. Gorson, with him John J. McDevitt, Jr., for appellant cited: Michigan Cent. R.R. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59; Chicago & A.R.R. v. Wagner, 239 U.S. 452; Murray v R.R., 263 Pa. 398.

George Gowen Parry, with him Charlemagne T. Wolfe, for appellee, cited: N.Y.C.R.R. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147; Second Employer's Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1; N.C.R.R. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Northern P. Ry. v. State of Washington, 222 U.S. 370; New York Cent. & H.R.R.R. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART and SADLER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:

Joseph V. McNeill, a brakeman of defendant, while working on its right-of-way, was struck by another train and received injuries from which he died the same day. His widow, on behalf of herself and their minor children, presented a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act; the referee held that decedent was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury and hence the claim was not compensable; the Workmen's Compensation Board and the court below sustained this ruling, and from the judgment of the latter tribunal plaintiff appeals.

It is admitted there were interstate cars in the train on which decedent was working, but it is alleged the train crew were engaged in a "purely shifting operation or local movement," and hence, under Murray v. Pgh C., C. & St. L.R.R. Co., 263 Pa. 398, interstate commerce was not affected and the rules applicable thereto do not apply. In answer, it is sufficient to point out the vital distinction that, in the case cited, a purely local car, which had not been and was not intended to be a part of the train, was being shifted from one part of the yard to another, to be left at the latter point; while in the instant case, as appellant herself says, this interstate train was being "cut so that another car might be made a part" thereof "in station order," that is, so that each car when it reached its destination might readily be detached and the train sooner proceed, thus the interstate as well as the intrastate transportation being the better effected. This necessarily had a direct bearing upon interstate commerce and makes the entire train, so far as liability is concerned, an interstate train: Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Washington, 222 U.S....