North Carolina Railroad v. Zachary
Citations
- 232 U.S. 248
- 34 S. Ct. 305
- 58 L. Ed. 591
- 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1398
Syllabus
<p>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 employé must have been employed by such carrier in such commerce.</p> <p>Where the defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and the employé 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.</p> <p>Where the state court improperly refuses to apply the provisions of the' Federal Employers’ Liability Act in an action for injuries to an employé of a common carrier while both employer and employé were engaged in interstate commerce and the result might have been different, the judgment must be reversed.</p> <p>The persons related to the deceased employé 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.</p> <p>Whether the question of employment by the deceased employé 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.</p> <p>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 controls as to liability for injuries to employés of the lessee engaged i
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a fireman’s “acts in inspecting, oiling, firing, and preparing his engine for [a] trip . . . were acts performed as a part of interstate commerce and the circumstance that the interstate freight cars had not as yet been coupled up [was] legally insignificant”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.