Philadelphia Co v. Smith, No. 472

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPITNEY
Citation39 S.Ct. 396,250 U.S. 101,63 L.Ed. 869
Decision Date19 May 1919
Docket NumberNo. 472
PartiesPHILADELPHIA, B. & W. R. CO. v. SMITH

250 U.S. 101
39 S.Ct. 396
63 L.Ed. 869
PHILADELPHIA, B. & W. R. CO.

v.

SMITH.

No. 472.
Argued April 15, 1919.
Decided May 19, 1919.

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and John Spalding Flannery, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of Denton, Md., for respondent.

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent brought his action in a state court of Maryland under the provisions of the federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, as amended April 5, 1910 (35 Stat. 65, c. 149 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]; 36 Stat. 291, c. 143), to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him upon one of petitioner's lines of railroad in the state of Maryland over which petitioner was engaged in transporting interstate as well as intrastate commerce.

Page 102

Plaintiff was employed by defendant in connection with a gang of bridge carpenters, who were employed by defendant in the repair of the bridges and bridge abutments upon said line of railway. The gang, including plaintiff, worked over the entire line, and were moved from point to point as the repair work required in what was called a 'camp car,' furnished and moved by defendant, in which they ate, slept, and lived. Plaintiff's principal duties were to take care of this car, keep it clean, attend to the beds, and prepare and cook the meals for himself and the other members of the gang. On December 23, 1915, the bridge carpenters were engaged in repairing a bridge abutment on defendant's line near Easton, Maryland, and the camp car was on defendant's side track at Easton; and while plaintiff was in the car, engaged in cooking a meal for the bridge carpenters and himself, the engineer of one of defendant's trains, without warning, ran the engine upon the side track and against a car to which the camp car was coupled with such force that plaintiff received injuries, to recover for which his action was brought.

A judgment in plaintiff's favor was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals (132 Md. 345, 103 Atl. 945), and the case comes here on a writ of certiorari.

The only question we have to consider is whether plaintiff at the time he was injured was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the statute. Petitioner, citing Illinois Central R. R. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 478, 34 Sup. Ct. 646, 58 L. Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, and Erie R. R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303, 37 Sup. Ct. 116, 61 L. Ed. 319, as conclusive to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...239 U.S. 548, 60 L.Ed. 431; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 84, 64 L.Ed. 794; Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 63 L.Ed. 869. The United States supreme court has in several leading cases laid down the test of what constitutes employment in interstate......
  • Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 4, 1938
    ...Act. New York Central R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 61 L. Ed. 1045; Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R.R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 63 L. Ed. 869; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Russo, 91 Ind. App. 48 (certiorari denied 75 L. Ed. 750); Bennor v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. (Wa......
  • Waithaka v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 19-1848
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • July 17, 2020
    ...interpreting the statute say that the words "employed" and "engaged" are interchangeable. See, e.g., Phila., B. & W.R.R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 102, 104, 39 S.Ct. 396, 63 L.Ed. 869 (1919) (considering whether employee was "engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the statut......
  • Leod v. Threlkeld, No. 787
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1943
    ...materially in degree. Hence he was employed, as they were, in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act.' 250 U.S. 101, 104, 39 S.Ct. 396, 397, 63 L.Ed. 869. Such a ruling under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, after the Bolle, Industrial Commission and Be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
77 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...239 U.S. 548, 60 L.Ed. 431; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 84, 64 L.Ed. 794; Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 63 L.Ed. 869. The United States supreme court has in several leading cases laid down the test of what constitutes employment in interstate......
  • Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co., No. 18850.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 4, 1938
    ...Act. New York Central R.R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 61 L. Ed. 1045; Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R.R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 63 L. Ed. 869; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Russo, 91 Ind. App. 48 (certiorari denied 75 L. Ed. 750); Bennor v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. (Wa......
  • Waithaka v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 19-1848
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • July 17, 2020
    ...interpreting the statute say that the words "employed" and "engaged" are interchangeable. See, e.g., Phila., B. & W.R.R. Co. v. Smith, 250 U.S. 101, 102, 104, 39 S.Ct. 396, 63 L.Ed. 869 (1919) (considering whether employee was "engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the statut......
  • Leod v. Threlkeld, No. 787
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1943
    ...materially in degree. Hence he was employed, as they were, in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act.' 250 U.S. 101, 104, 39 S.Ct. 396, 397, 63 L.Ed. 869. Such a ruling under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, after the Bolle, Industrial Commission and Be......
  • 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