Otterstedt v. Lehigh Hudson River Railway Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Gulf M. N.R. Co. v. Madden

    200 So. 119 (Miss. 1941)   Cited 12 times

    76; Philadelphia Reading R. Co. v. DiDonato, 256 U.S. 327, 41 S.Ct. 516, 65 L.Ed. 955; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Porter, 249 U.S. 168, 39 S.Ct. 188, 63 L.Ed. 536; Rader v. B. O.R. Co., 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 980, and Kinzell v. Chicago, M. St. P.R. Co., 250 U.S. 130, 39 S.Ct. 412, 63 L.Ed. 893. The appellant, in maintaining the negative, cites: Raymond v. Chicago, M. St. P.R. Co., 243 U.S. 43, 37 S.Ct. 268, 61 L. Ed 583; Bravis v. Chicago, M. St. P.R. Co., 8 Cir., 217 F. 234; Industrial Accident Comm. v. Davis, 259 U.S. 182, 42 S.Ct. 489, 66 L.Ed. 888; New Orleans N.E.R. Co. v. Beard, 128 Miss. 172, 90 So. 727; The Kinzell case, supra; Thomas v. Boston M.R. Co., D.C., 218 F. 143; United States v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., D.C., 219 F. 632; Dickinson v. Industrial Board, 280 Ill. 342, 117 N.E. 438; Walz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 232 Ill. App. 398; Klomp v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 210 Ill. App. 375; McKee v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 78 W. Va. 131, 88 S.E. 616; Otterstedt v. Lehigh, etc., R. Co., 200 App. Div. 386, 193 N.Y.S. 104; Id., 234 N.Y. 203, 137 N.E. 26; Louisville N.R. Co. v. Morgan's Adm'r, 225 Ky. 447, 9 S.W.2d 212; and Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lundquist, 206 Iowa 499, 221 N.W. 228. The rule which has been formulated as a result of the foregoing and many other cases is expressed as follows: The service performed must be directly and immediately related to interstate commerce and that relation must be so close or intimate as to make the work then being done by the employe practically a part of such commerce.

  2. Towns v. Railway Co.

    105 W. Va. 572 (W. Va. 1928)   Cited 2 times

    The present case involves the same principle. Plaintiff was going to, instead of returning from, work which was clearly intrastate in its character. In Otterstedt v. Lehigh etc. R. R. Co., 193 N.Y.S. 104, the employee, a laborer in a repair and construction gang was fatally injured by his employer's train while on his way to work on a cross-over railroad track which when completed would be used in the interstate business of his employer, and the court held that he was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury. Many well considered cases hold that an employee whose regular work is of an interstate character is protected by the federal act when on his way to or from that work. Mathison v. Payne, 98 N.J.L. 87, and numerous other cases collated in annotation to Mappin v. A. T. S. F. R. Co., 49 A.L.R. 1330, under the heading "Travelling about yards, or to and from work, or awaiting orders," on p. 1358. It seems that the same principle would apply where the employee is injured while going to or returning from a work wholly intrastate in character. The fact that the employee does work both of purely intrastate, and at other times purely of interstate character does not b