U.S. Supreme Court
North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248 (1914)
North Carolina Railroad Company v. Zachary
Argued December 17, 18, 1913
Decided February 2, 1914
232 U.S. 248
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
In order to bring a case within the terms of the Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908, the defendant must have been, at the time of the occurrence, engaged as a common carrier in interstate commerce and the injured employee must have been employed by such carrier in such commerce.
Where the defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and the employee for whose injuries the suit is brought was employed by the defendant in such commerce, the Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 governs to the exclusion of the state statutes.
Where the state court improperly refuses to apply the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act in an action for injuries to an employee of a common carrier while both employer and employee were engaged in interstate commerce and the result might have been different, the judgment must be reversed.
The persons related to the deceased employee as specified in the Employers' Liability Act of 1908 are the beneficiaries of an action prescribed by the act, and the damages are to be based upon the pecuniary loss sustained by such beneficiaries. .
Whether the question of employment by the deceased employee in interstate commerce was properly raised in the state court as a bar to the action in accordance with the local code is a question of state practice, and if the highest court of the state assumed or decided that the record presented that question and decided it against the party asserting it, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 237, Judicial Code.
A railroad company, leasing its entire line, which is wholly intrastate, to another railroad company doing an interstate business creates the latter its agent and becomes a common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and if, under the local law, the lessor remains responsible for the lessee's acts, the Employers' Liability Act of 1908 chanrobles.com-red
controls as to liability for injuries to employees of the lessee engaged in interstate commerce.
Where, upon the evidence, any essential matter bearing on the question of whether an employee of a railroad company was at the time of the injury engaged in interstate commerce is in doubt, it should be submitted to the jury under proper instructions.
Where the state court refused to submit questions to the jury on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the federal right asserted, this Court will analyze the evidence to the extent necessary to give plaintiff in error the benefit of such federal right if it was improperly denied. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601.
When a freight train for an intrastate point is being made up of cars including some from a train which started from another state, it is a reasonable inference that such cars were being carried forward as a part of a through movement of interstate commerce.
Hauling empty cars from one state to another is interstate commerce within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act of 1908.
The Employers' Liability Act is in pari materia with the Safety Appliance Act, and this Court, following its rulings in regard to the latter, holds that the hauling of empty cars from one state to another is interstate commerce within the meaning of the act. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 146 U. S. 1.
Acts of an employee in preparing an engine for a trip to move freight in interstate commerce, although done prior to the actual coupling up of the interstate cars, are acts done while engaged in interstate commerce.
Although absent temporarily from his train for a short time for a purpose not inconsistent with his duty to his employer, a railroad employee may still be on duty and engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act of 1908.
156 N.C. 496 reversed.
The facts, which involve the construction of the Employers' Liability Act of 1908 and its application to employes engaged in hauling interstate cars between intrastate points, and also to the owner of an intrastate railroad which it has leased to a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red
MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina, to recover damages for the negligent killing of Burgess, a locomotive fireman in the employ of the Southern Railway Company, lessee of the defendant, which occurred at Selma, North Carolina, on April 29, 1909. Under the local law, as laid down in Logan v. Railroad, 116 N.C. 940, the lessor is responsible for all acts of negligence of its lessee occurring in the conduct of business upon the lessor's road, and this upon the ground that a railroad corporation cannot evade its public duty and responsibility by leasing its road to another corporation, in the absence of a statute expressly exempting it. The responsibility is held to extend to employees of the lessee injured through the negligence of the latter.
The complaint set forth in substance that plaintiff's intestate, being in the employ of defendant's lessee and engaged at the Selma switchyards in the discharge of his duties as fireman upon engine No. 862, about 8 o'clock, p.m. on the date mentioned, after inspecting, oiling, firing, and preparing the engine for starting on a trip from Selma to Spencer, North Carolina, attempted to cross certain tracks that intervened between the engine and his chanrobles.com-red
boarding house, which was located a short distance away; that another engine, No. 716, was standing upon a side track in such position as to shut off intestate's view of the main track; that No. 716 had its blower on, and was making a noise so loud that intestate could not hear a third engine, No. 1551, the shifting engine used in the yards, which at this time was running backward at a reckless and dangerous rate of speed, without headlight and without an adequate and competent crew, and that, as intestate stepped from the track in the rear of engine No. 716, and was about to step upon the main line in the attempt to cross it, he was struck and killed by the shifting engine. Defendant's answer, besides denying the allegations of negligence, set up as a special defense that, at the time plaintiff's intestate was killed, he was engaged in interstate commerce as an employee upon a train of defendant's lessee which was moving from Selma, North Carolina, to Spencer, in the same state, and carrying cars loaded with freight from the State of Virginia to the State of North Carolina and other states; that the liability of the defendant to him or to the plaintiff as his representative was fixed and regulated by the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, and that, under that act, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Upon the trial, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, which tended generally to support the averments of the complaint, defendant moved for a nonsuit, and among other grounds assigned the following: that, from the uncontradicted evidence, it appeared that, at the time of the occurrence in question, defendant, through its lessee, was a common carrier by railroad, engaged in interstate commerce, and plaintiff's intestate was at that time a person employed by such carrier in such commerce; that the Act of Congress already referred to exclusively regulated the liability of defendant to plaintiff's intestate, and that, upon all the evidence, plaintiff had failed to make out a chanrobles.com-red
case of liability under that act. The court, in denying the motion, held that the action was brought under the statute of North Carolina, that the federal act had no application, and that the cause was triable under the statutes of the state. To this ruling defendant excepted. At the close of the case, defendant again undertook to invoke the protection of the federal act by requested instructions to the jury, which were refused, and exceptions allowed.
There was a verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon, followed by an appeal to the supreme court of the state. That court overruled the contention of defendant that the Federal Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, applied, and held that the action was properly tried under the state law. The result was an affirmance, 156 N.C. 496, and the case comes here under § 709, Rev.Stat. (Judicial Code, § 237).
In order to bring the case within the terms of the federal act (35 Stat. 65, c. 149, printed in full in 223 U.S. p. 223 U. S. 6), defendant must have been, at the time of the occurrence in question, engaged as a common carrier in interstate commerce, and plaintiff's intestate must have been employed by said carrier in such commerce. If these facts appeared, the federal act governed to the exclusion of the statutes of the state. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 229 U. S. 158.
It is not disputed that, if the provisions of the federal act had been applied, the result of the action might have been different. To mention only one matter, there was neither averment in the pleadings nor evidence at the trial that deceased left a widow, child, parent, or dependent next of kin. Persons thus related to deceased are the respective beneficiaries of the action prescribed by the Act of Congress, and the damages are to be based upon the chanrobles.com-red
pecuniary loss sustained by the beneficiary. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 227 U. S. 68; Gulf, Colorado &c. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173. The state law (Revisal 1908, § 2646) seems not to recognize this limitation upon the measure of recovery; certainly the damages in the present case were assessed without regard to it.
In support of the judgment, it is earnestly argued that the question whether deceased was employed in interstate commerce was not properly raised in the trial court, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the local Code of Civil Procedure. But this is a question of state practice, and since it appears that defendant expressly claimed immunity by reason of the Act of Congress, and the highest court of the state either decided or assumed that the record sufficiently presented a question of federal right, and decided against the party asserting that right, the decisions of this Court render it clear that it is our duty to pass upon the merits of the federal question. Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 155, 187 U. S. 157; Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177, 189 U. S. 179; Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 204 U. S. 299; Chambers v. Balt. & Ohio R. Co., 207 U. S. 142, 207 U. S. 148; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, decided this day, ante, p. 232 U. S. 236.
The court based its decision that the federal act did not apply in part upon the ground that the North Carolina Railroad is not an interstate railroad -- its tracks and property lying wholly within the state -- and that the corporation itself is not, although its lessee is, engaged in interstate commerce, the lessor's activities being confined to receiving annual rents and distributing them among its stockholders. The responsibility of the lessor for all acts of negligence of the lessee occurring in the conduct of business on the lessor's road, as established by the same court in Logan v. Railroad, 116 N.C. 941, was recognized -- indeed, reasserted. "But," it was said,
"that is because a railroad corporation cannot escape its responsibility
by leasing its road. It is still liable for its lessee's acts of commission and omission, whether they occur in interstate or intrastate commerce, although the lessor is not actually engaged in either."
156 N.C. 500.
It is plain enough, however, that the effect of the rule thus laid down, especially in view of the grounds upon which it is based, is, that, although a railroad lease as between the parties may have the force and effect of an ordinary lease, yet with respect to the railroad operations conducted under it, and everything that relates to the performance of the public duties assumed by the lessor under its charter, such a lease -- certainly so far as concerns the rights of third parties, including employees as well as patrons -- constitutes the lessee the lessor's substitute or agent, so that for whatever the lessee does or fails to do, whether, in interstate or in intrastate commerce, the lessor is responsible. This being the legal situation under the local law, it seems to us that it must and does result, in the the case before us, that the lessor is a "common carrier by railroad, engaging in commerce between the states," and that the deceased was "employed by such carrier in such commerce" within the meaning of the federal act, provided, of course, he was employed by the lessee in such commerce at the time he was killed.
It was, however, further held by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that deceased, at the time he was killed, was not in fact employed by the Southern Railway, the lessee, in interstate commerce. There are several grounds upon which this decision was based, or upon which it is said to be supportable, and these will be separately noticed. Of course, if, upon the evidence, any essential matter of fact was in doubt, it should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The rulings of the trial court deprived plaintiff in error of the opportunity to go to the jury upon the question. But it is now insisted that there was no evidence tending to show that chanrobles.com-red
deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. This renders it incumbent upon us to analyze the evidence to the extent necessary to give to plaintiff in error the benefit of its asserted federal right. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 227 U. S. 611, and cases cited.
The evidence tended to show that train No. 72 of the Southern Railway had come into Selma, North Carolina, from Pinners Point, Virginia and other places, and that a shifting crew was "working" this train so as to take two cars from it and put them into a train that was to include these and other cars to be hauled from Selma to Spencer, North Carolina by engine No. 862, and that deceased was employed on this engine as fireman for the trip that was about to begin, and had already prepared his engine for the purpose. It is contended that the evidence failed to show that the two cars thus taken from train No. 72 had come in from Virginia, rather than from the "other places," which it is said might be intermediate North Carolina points. We find, however, evidence that the train which was to be hauled from Selma to Spencer by engine No. 862 was being made up in part from cars that had come in from Pinners Point, and it was at least a reasonable inference that the two cars referred to were being put into the Spencer train in order to be carried forward as a part of a through movement of interstate commerce.
There seems to be no clear evidence as to the contents of these cars, and it is argued that, in the absence of evidence, it is as reasonable to infer that they were empty as that they were loaded, and that it was incumbent upon defendant to show that they contained interstate freight. We hardly deem it so probable that empty freight cars would be hauled from the Virginia point to Spencer. But, were it so, the hauling of empty cars from one state to another is, in our opinion, interstate commerce within the meaning of the act. Such is the view that has obtained with respect to empty cars in actions based upon the chanrobles.com-red
Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 531, c. 196). Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U. S. 1, 196 U. S. 21; Voelker v. Railway Co., 116 F.8d 7, 873. And the like reason applies, as we think, to actions founded upon the Employers' Liability Act, which, indeed, is in pari materia with the other
It is argued that, because, so far as appears, deceased had not previously participated in any movement of interstate freight, and the through cars had not as yet been attached to his engine, his employment in interstate commerce was still in futuro. It seems to us, however, that his acts in inspecting, oiling, firing, and preparing his engine for the trip to Selma were acts performed as a part of interstate commerce, and the circumstance that the interstate freight cars had not as yet been coupled up is legally insignificant. See Pedersen v. Del., Lack. & Western R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, 229 U. S. 151; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 229 U. S. 161.
Again, it is said that, because deceased had left his engine and was going to his boarding house, he was engaged upon a personal errand, and not upon the carrier's business. Assuming (what is not clear) that the evidence fairly tended to indicate the boarding house as his destination, it nevertheless also appears that deceased was shortly to depart upon his run, having just prepared his engine for the purpose, and that he had not gone beyond the limits of the railroad yard when he was struck. There is nothing to indicate that this brief visit to the boarding house was at all out of the ordinary or was inconsistent with his duty to his employer. It seems to us clear that the man was still "on duty," and employed in commerce, notwithstanding his temporary absence from the locomotive engine. See Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 231 U. S. 119.
We conclude that, with respect to the facts necessary to bring the case within the federal act, there was evidence chanrobles.com-red
that at least was sufficient to go to the jury. It is doubtful whether there was substantial contradiction respecting any of these facts, but this we need not consider.
From what has been said, it follows that the state courts erred in holding that the federal act had no application. As the case stands, we are not called upon to determine the validity of the several contentions that were raised by defendant at the trial on the strength of that act, nor to pass upon the mode in which they were raised. Upon these matters, therefore, we express no opinion.
Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.