Hogarty v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 245 Pa. 443
• 91 A. 854
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 896

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Interstate commerce — Injuries to employees — Act of Congress of April 22,1908, 85 Stat. 65, Chap. 11(9.</p> <p>1. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. 65, Chap. 149, supersedes the laws of the states upon all matters within its scope, and so long as it remains upon the statute books, in cases involving accidents happening upon interstate railroads, to employees engaged in interstate commerce, such state laws must be viewed as non-existent.</p> <p>2. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act must be treated by the State courts in each instance, as though an act of their own legislature, and its provision that any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose of which is to enable a common carrier to exempt itself from liability for negligence to its employees, “shall to that extent be void” is the announcement of a broad rule of public policy applicable to all cases within the scope of tbe statute, with'like effect as though promulgated by an Act of the State legislature.</p> <p>Pleading — Statements of claim — Allegata and probata — Injuries to employees employed in interstate commerce — Federal Employers’ Liability Act — Necessity to plead statutes.</p> <p>3. Where a plaintiff does not expressly plead the statute, but proves a case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, there is no such departure between the allegata and the probata, as will entitle the defendant to binding instructions in his favor. Allen v. Tuscarora Yal. Ry. Co., 229 Pa. 97, distinguished.</p> <p>Negligence — Railroads—Injuries to employees — Defenses—Acceptance of benefits — Gase for jury.</p> <p>4. In an action of trespass against a railroad company to recover damages .for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, an employee of defendant’s engaged in interstate commerce, in consequence of the alleged negligent construction and maintenance of defendant’s railroad, where there was sufficient evidence of neg