New York Central Hudson River Railroad Company v. Bernard Carr, No. 257

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtLamar
Citation238 U.S. 260,59 L.Ed. 1298,35 S.Ct. 780
Docket NumberNo. 257
Decision Date14 June 1915
PartiesNEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. BERNARD J. CARR

238 U.S. 260
35 S.Ct. 780
59 L.Ed. 1298
NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

BERNARD J. CARR.

No. 257.
Argued May 4, 1915.
Decided June 14, 1915.

Messrs. Maurice C. Spratt, Lester F. Gilbert, and Charles C. Paulding for plaintiff in error.

Page 261

Messrs. Hamilton Ward and John Lewis Smith for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

Carr was a brakeman on a 'pick-up' freight train running from Rochester to Lockport over the lines of the New York Central. On November 18, 1910, some of the cars in this train contained interstate freight. Among those engaged in purely intrastate business were the two

Page 262

cars, at the head of the train and next to the engine, which were to be left at North Tonawanda, New York. On arriving at that point they were uncoupled from the train, pulled by the engine down the track, and then backed into a siding. It was the duty of one brakeman (O'Brien) to uncouple the air hose from the engine, and for the other (Carr) to set the hand brakes in order to prevent the two cars from rolling down upon the main track. O'Brien, having failed to open the gauge to the stopcock, suddenly and negligently 'broke' the air hose. The result was that the sudden escape of air—applied only in cases of emergency—violently turned the wheel handle attached to the brake which Carr at the time was attempting to set. The wrench threw Carr to the ground, and for the injuries thus suffered he brought suit in a state court. If the case was to be governed by the law of New York he was not entitled to recover, since the injury was due to the negligence of O'Brien, a fellow servant. He did recover a verdict under the Federal employers' liability act, and, the judgment thereon having been affirmed (157 App. Div. 941, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1111, 158 App. Div. 891, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1109), the case is here on writ of error to review that ruling.

The railroad company insists that when the two cars were cut out of the train and backed into a siding, they lost their interstate character, so that Carr while working thereon was engaged in intrastate commerce and not entitled to recover under the Federal employers' liability act. The scope of that statute is so broad that it covers a vast field about which there can be no discussion. But owing to the fact that, during the same day, railroad employees often and rapidly pass from one class of employment to another, the courts are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
225 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...572, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U.S. 269, 59 L.Ed. 1303; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 59 L.Ed. 1298; Central Vermont R. R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 59 L.Ed. 1433; Great Northern Railway Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349, 60 L.Ed.......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...18 S.W. (2d) 436; 2 Roberts' Fed. Liability of Carriers (2 Ed.), sec. 727, p. 1373; Hines v. Logan, 269 Fed. 105; Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260; Railroad Co. v. Dunlap, 58 Fed. (2d) 951; O'Donnell v. Director General of Railroads, 273 Pa. 375, 117 Atl. 82; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Parke......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...employment. 45 U.S.C.A., secs. 51-59; Rogers v. Railroad Co., 337 Mo. 140, 85 S.W. (2d) 581; New York, C. & H. Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 35 Sup. Ct. 780, 59 L. Ed. 1298; Erie Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 170, 37 Sup. Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057; Pederson v. Railroad Co., 229 U.S......
  • Gieseking v. Litchfield & Madison Ry. Co., No. 33850.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 23, 1936
    ...231 N.Y. 67, certiorari denied 257 U.S. 636; Kenna v. Calumet H. & Ser., 206 Ill. App. 17; N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260; Penn. Railroad Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50. (2) The acceptance and retention by plaintiff of amounts paid to him under the Workmen's Compens......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
225 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...572, 58 L.Ed. 1099; Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U.S. 269, 59 L.Ed. 1303; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 59 L.Ed. 1298; Central Vermont R. R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 59 L.Ed. 1433; Great Northern Railway Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349, 60 L.Ed.......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...18 S.W. (2d) 436; 2 Roberts' Fed. Liability of Carriers (2 Ed.), sec. 727, p. 1373; Hines v. Logan, 269 Fed. 105; Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260; Railroad Co. v. Dunlap, 58 Fed. (2d) 951; O'Donnell v. Director General of Railroads, 273 Pa. 375, 117 Atl. 82; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Parke......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1937
    ...employment. 45 U.S.C.A., secs. 51-59; Rogers v. Railroad Co., 337 Mo. 140, 85 S.W. (2d) 581; New York, C. & H. Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260, 35 Sup. Ct. 780, 59 L. Ed. 1298; Erie Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 170, 37 Sup. Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057; Pederson v. Railroad Co., 229 U.S......
  • Gieseking v. Litchfield & Madison Ry. Co., No. 33850.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 23, 1936
    ...231 N.Y. 67, certiorari denied 257 U.S. 636; Kenna v. Calumet H. & Ser., 206 Ill. App. 17; N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. Carr, 238 U.S. 260; Penn. Railroad Co. v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50. (2) The acceptance and retention by plaintiff of amounts paid to him under the Workmen's Compens......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT