Moore v. Chesapeake Ry Co, No. 173

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HUGHES
• Citation: 54 S.Ct. 402,291 U.S. 205,78 L.Ed. 755
• Parties: MOORE v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO
• Decision Date: 05 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 173

291 U.S. 205 54 S.Ct. 402 78 L.Ed. 755 MOORE

v.

CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.

No. 173. Argued Dec. 10, 11, 1933. Decided Feb. 5, 1934.

[Syllabus from 206 intentionally omitted]

Page 206

Messrs. Edward Davidson, of La Fayette, Ind., and John P. Bramhall, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Albert H. Cole, of Peru, Ind., for respondent.

Page 207

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner brought this action in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, to recover for injuries which he sustained on November 29, 1930, in the course of his employment by respondent, an interstate carrier, in its yard

Page 208

at Russell, ky. In his complaint he set forth two 'paragraphs' or counts, both being for the same injuries. In the first paragraph, petitioner alleged that at the time of the injuries he was employed in interstate commerce and that he brought the action under the acts of Congress known as the Federal Employers' Liability Act¹ and the Safety Appliance Acts,² and the rules and orders which the Interstate Commerce Commission had promulgated under the latter.³ In the second paragraph, he alleged that, at the time of the injuries, he was employed in intrastate commerce, and he invoked the Safety Appliance Acts enacted by the Congress, and the rules and orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission thereunder, and the Employers' Liability Act of Kentucky. The provisions of the laws of Kentucky which were alleged to govern the rights of the parties at the time and place in question were set forth.⁴ In each count petitioner stated that the injuries were received while he was engaged as a switchman in attempting to uncouple certain freight cars and were due to a defective uncoupling lever.

Objections to the jurisdiction of the District Court as to each count were raised by plea in abatement. They were overruled, and petitioner had a general verdict. The judgment, entered accordingly, was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals upon the ground that the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the case upon

Page 209

either count, 64 F.(2d) 472. This Court granted certiorari. 290 U.S. 613, 54 S.Ct. 60, 78 L.Ed. —-.

Distinct questions are presented with respect to each count, and they will be considered separately.

First. By the first paragraph, the jurisdiction of the federal court was rested upon the sole ground that the injury had been sustained during petitioner's employment in interstate commerce and that the cause of action arose under the pertinent federal legislation. To support the jurisdiction of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the complaint alleged that respondent was engaged in business in that district at the time of the commencement of the action. Respondent's challenge to the jurisdiction was upon the grounds (1) that at the time of the injuries petitioner was not employed in interstate commerce and hence the action would not lie under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA § 51 et seq.) and (2) that respondent was a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and an inhabitant of the Eastern District of Virginia, and hence, so far as the action rested upon the Safety Appliance Acts of Congress (45 USCA § 1 et seq.) and the rules and orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it could not be brought in a federal court in any district other than the Eastern District of Virginia. Jud. Code § 51, 28 U.S.C. § 112 (28 USCA § 112).

Petitioner's demurrer to the plea in abatement as to the first cause of action was sustained by the trial court. That court pointed out that the plea did not deny that respondent was doing business within the Northern District of Indiana and that the pleading, in substance, went to the merits. The Circuit Court of Appeals took a different view, holding that, so far as petitioner relied upon a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts, the action must be brought in the district of respondent's residence. In reversing the judgment, the Circuit Court of Appeals re-

Page 210

manded the cause with instructions to grant permission to petitioner to amend his first paragraph to conform exclusively to the theory of a violation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

This ruling of the appellate court cannot be sustained. The jurisdiction of the District Court is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint. Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U.S. 29, 30, 53 S.Ct. 67, 77 L.Ed. 148; Levering & Garrigues v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105, 53 S.Ct. 549, 77 L.Ed. 1062. These allegations clearly set forth, in the first paragraph, a cause of action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Every essential ingredient of such a cause of action was appropriately alleged. The Federal Employers' Liability Act expressly recognized that in an action brought under its provisions the question of a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts might be presented and determined. This is the unmistakable effect of the provisions that, in such an action, the employee shall not be held 'to have been guilty of contributory negligence,' or 'to have assumed the risks of his employment' in any case 'where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee.' Act of April 22, 1908, §§ 3, 4, 45 U.S.C. §§ 53, 54 (45 USCA §§ 53, 54). By the phrase 'any statute enacted for the safety of employees,' the Congress evidently intended to embrace its Safety Appliance Acts. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 503, 34 S.Ct. 635, 58 L.Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1, Ann.Cas. 1915B, 475. This Court has said that the statutes are in pari materia and that, 'where the Employers' Liability Act refers to 'any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances,' etc., it clearly is the legislative intent to treat a violation of the Safety Appliance Act as 'negligence,'—what is sometimes called negligence per se.' San Antonio & Aransas Pass R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 484, 36 S.Ct. 626, 630, 60 L.Ed. 1110. Where an employee of an interstate carrier sustains injuries while employed in the interstate commerce of the carrier, his action

Page 211

may thus be brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in connection with the Safety Appliance Acts.⁵

Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, an action may be brought 'in a District Court of the United States, in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing such action.' 45 U.S.C. § 56 (45 USCA § 56). It follows that, upon the allegations of the complaint, the action on the claim set forth in the first paragraph was properly brought in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana where respondent was doing business when the action was begun.

Second. In the second paragraph of the complaint, which treated the injuries as received in intrastate commerce, diversity of citizenship was alleged, that petitioner was a citizen of Indiana, and a resident of the city of Fort Wayne in that state, and that respondent was a citizen of Virginia doing business in Indiana. The plea in abatement, admitting respondent's citizenship in Virginia, denied that petitioner was a resident of Fort Wayne or of the Northern district of Indiana, or was a citizen of that state, and alleged that, as the cause of action set forth in the second paragraph arose under the Federal Safety Appliance Acts, the action could not be brought

Page 212

in any district other than the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court took evidence on the issue of fact, found that the petitioner was a citizen of Indiana and a resident of Fort Wayne, and overruled the plea. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court of the Northern District of Indiana was without jurisdiction, in the view that the second count attempted to set forth a cause of action 'under the Federal Safety Appliance Act as well as under the statutes of Kentucky,' and hence that jurisdiction did not rest solely...