Southern Pac Co v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California, No. 118

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcREYNOLDS
Citation64 L.Ed. 258,251 U.S. 259,40 S.Ct. 130,10 A. L. R. 1181
Decision Date05 January 1920
Docket NumberNo. 118
PartiesSOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al

251 U.S. 259
40 S.Ct. 130
64 L.Ed. 258
SOUTHERN PAC. CO.

v.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 118.
Submitted Dec. 18, 1919.
Decided Jan. 5, 1920.

Messrs. Henley C. Booth and William F. Herrin, both of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.

Page 260

Messrs. Christopher M. Bradley and Warren H. Pillsbury, both of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 260-262 intentionally omitted]

Page 262

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

William T. Bulter, husband of responent Mary E. Butler, was killed at Oakland, California, while employed by the Southern Pacific Company as an electric lineman. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed an award rendered by the California Industrial Commission against the company, and the cause is properly here by writ of certiorari.

The fatal accident, which occurred June 21, 1917, arose out of and happened in the course of deceased's employment. He 'received an electric shock while wiping insulators, which caused him to fall from a steel power pole, producing injury which proximately caused his death.' At that time the company a common carrier by railroad, maintained a power house at Fruitvale, California, where it manufactured the electric current which moved its cars engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce. From the generators this current passed along main lines or cables, through a reduction and transforming station, to the trolley wires, and thence to the motors. When he received the electric shock, deceased was engaged in work on one of the main lines necessary to keep it in serviceable condition. If such work was part of interstate commerce, the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State (St. 1917, p. 831) is inapplicable and the judgment below must be reversed. Otherwise, it must be affirmed. Employers' Liability Act

Page 263

April 22, 1908, ch. 149, 35 Stat. 65 (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665); New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 37 Sup. Ct. 546, 61 L. Ed. 1045, L. R. A. 1918C, 439, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168, 39 Sup. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536.

Generally, when applicability of the federal Employers' Liability Act is uncertain, the character of the employment, in relation to commerce, may be adequately tested by inquiring whether, at the time of the injury, the employe was engaged in work so closely connected with interstate transportation as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R. Co., 250 U.S. 130, 63 L.Ed. 893; Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U.S. 259, 64 L.Ed. 258; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 77, 64 L.Ed. 790; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Polk, 256 U.S. 332, 65 L.Ed. 958; Ind......
  • Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 12, 1931
    ...York Central Railroad v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168, 39 S. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536;Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259, 40 S. Ct. 130, 64 L. Ed. 258, 10 A. L. R. 1181. See, also, American Railroad Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 547, 32 S. Ct. 603, 56 L. Ed. 879. It does......
  • Milling Co v. Bondurant, DAHNKE-WALKER
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1921
    ...6, 1916, certiorari is the proper means of reveiwing a judgment involving that question. Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Commission, 251 U. S. 259, 40 Sup. Ct. 130, 64 L. Ed. 258, 10 A. L. R. 1181. If the rule now insisted upon obtains, the carrier could in every such case secure a revie......
  • Moser v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 7150
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 25, 1944
    ...Case has been categorically restated and applied also in the following cases among others: Southern P. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Commission, 251 U.S. 259, 263, 64 L.Ed. 258, 260, 10 A.L.R. 1181, 40 S.Ct. 130; Industrial Commission v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182, 185, 66 L.Ed. 888, 891, 42 S.Ct. 489; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R. Co., 250 U.S. 130, 63 L.Ed. 893; Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U.S. 259, 64 L.Ed. 258; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 77, 64 L.Ed. 790; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Polk, 256 U.S. 332, 65 L.Ed. 958; Ind......
  • Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 12, 1931
    ...York Central Railroad v. Porter, 249 U. S. 168, 39 S. Ct. 188, 63 L. Ed. 536;Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 251 U. S. 259, 40 S. Ct. 130, 64 L. Ed. 258, 10 A. L. R. 1181. See, also, American Railroad Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 547, 32 S. Ct. 603, 56 L. Ed. 879. It does......
  • Milling Co v. Bondurant, DAHNKE-WALKER
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1921
    ...6, 1916, certiorari is the proper means of reveiwing a judgment involving that question. Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Commission, 251 U. S. 259, 40 Sup. Ct. 130, 64 L. Ed. 258, 10 A. L. R. 1181. If the rule now insisted upon obtains, the carrier could in every such case secure a revie......
  • Moser v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 7150
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 25, 1944
    ...Case has been categorically restated and applied also in the following cases among others: Southern P. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Commission, 251 U.S. 259, 263, 64 L.Ed. 258, 260, 10 A.L.R. 1181, 40 S.Ct. 130; Industrial Commission v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182, 185, 66 L.Ed. 888, 891, 42 S.Ct. 489; ......
  • 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