Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Wright

Citations

• 239 U.S. 548
• 36 S. Ct. 185
• 60 L. Ed. 431
• 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1929

Syllabus

<p>Taking an engine from one State to another, although only for repairs, is an act of interstate commerce. North Carolina R. R. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 259.</p> <p>Where the employé sustains injury while the company was engaged in interstate commerce and he was employed in such commerce, the responsibility of the company is governed by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which is exclusive and supersedes state laws upon the same subject, and it is error to submit the ease to the jury as if the state laws were controlling. Wabash R. R. v. Hayes, 234 U. S. 86.</p> <p>Error which is not prejudicial affords no ground for reversal; and whore, as in this case, it appears that the employer was not prejudiced by the difference between the Federal Employers’ Liability Act which did control, and the Nebraska Law on that subject which had been superseded by the Federal Act, the judgment should not be reversed.</p> <p>No prejudice can result to an employer from instructions being more favorable in regard to contributory negligence under- the state law than if they had been given under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act which controlled, and the giving of instructions under the state law under such circumstances does not deny defendant a Federal right.</p> <p>The evidence in this case as to the existence and constructions of, and compliance with, rules in regard to speed of engines within the yard limits justified the submission of the question of negligence to the jury-</p>