Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Manning

Decision Date17 December 1932
Docket NumberNo. 4732.,4732.
Citation62 F.2d 293
PartiesPENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. MANNING.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Robert D. Dalzell and Dalzell, Dalzell, McFall & Pringle, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

J. Thomas Hoffman, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before WOOLLEY, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

Leo Manning brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59) to recover for injuries that he had sustained while in the employ of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

The case was tried to the District Court and a jury, and Manning obtained judgment on a verdict in his favor. The railroad company appealed.

At the time of the accident the railroad company employed Manning as an electrician in its classification yards at Conway, west of Pittsburgh, Pa. He was ordered to inspect and care for an overheated electrical motor that provided the motivating power for a traveling crane, used in loading and unloading scrap metal from cars, used, according to his testimony, in both interstate and intrastate commerce. But there is no testimony tending to show whether the crane was being used specifically for loading and unloading cars in interstate transportation at the time of the accident. Manning believed it necessary to inspect the motor that was on the carriage of the crane. This could be done safely, if the crane was in operation, only while unloading. After several unloading trips, the operator of the crane apparently forgot that Manning was on the carriage and began a loading operation. As a result, Manning was painfully injured.

The Federal Employers' Liability Act provides that a railroad engaged in interstate commerce shall be liable in damages for the injuries of an employee suffered while employed in interstate commerce.

The railroad company insists that Manning was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time he was injured and that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor.

Recently, and since the trial of this case, the Supreme Court has removed any conjecture as to the correct test for determining whether an injured employee is engaged in interstate commerce. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Bolle, 284 U. S. 74, 52 S. Ct. 59, 76 L. Ed. 173; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company v. Industrial Commission, 284 U. S. 296, 52 S. Ct. 151, 76 L. Ed. 304. The test it laid down in these cases was that which it had before applied in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, 36 S. Ct. 517, 60 L. Ed. 941, and in Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 239 U. S. 556, 558, 36 S. Ct. 188, 189, 60 L. Ed. 436, L. R. A. 1916C, 797, wherein the court said: "Having in mind the nature and usual course of the business to which the act relates and the evident purpose of Congress in adopting the act, we think it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Harris v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1938
    ... ... interstate commerce, since such work is too remote for it to ... be connected therewith. Penn. Railroad Co. v ... Manning, 62 F.2d 293; Chicago & Eastern Ill ... Railroad Co. v. Ind. Comm., 76 L.Ed. 304; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 76 L.Ed. 173; Southern ... on the right of way, but while the machine was being ... repaired ...           In ... Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Manning (C. C. A. 3rd), 62 ... F.2d 293, the employee was an electrician. At the time of ... injury he "was inspecting an ... ...
  • Drew v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1937
    ... ... Central Railroad Co ... (1936-N. J.), 182 A. 897 (repairing skylight of terminal ... train shed); Penn. Railroad Co. v. Manning (C. C. A ... 3rd), 62 F.2d 293 (repairing electric motor furnishing ... power to crane which loaded and unloaded both inter and ... intrastate ... ...
  • Keen v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • November 21, 1945
    ...The defendant cites and relies upon, among other cases under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the case of Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Manning, 3 Cir., 1932, 62 F.2d 293, certiorari denied 289 U.S. 738, 53 S.Ct. 657, 77 L.Ed. 1485, where a railroad employee was denied recovery for injuries u......
  • Louisville & NR Co. v. Brittain
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 8, 1937
    ...U.S. 556, 36 S.Ct. 188, 60 L.Ed. 436, L.R.A.1916C, 797; Poff v. Washington Terminal Co., 63 App.D.C. 86, 69 F.2d 572; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Manning (C.C.A.) 62 F.2d 293; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Nash, 242 U.S. 619, 620, 37 S.Ct. 239, 61 L.Ed. 531; Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Quin (C.C.......
  • 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