Phillips v. Chicago Northwestern Railway Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Drew v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.

    100 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. 1937)   Cited 8 times
    In Drew v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 340 Mo. 321, 100 S.W.2d 516, we found that the work of repairing a water crane was not so closely connected with the interstate transportation that an employee doing such work would be included in the act.

    (1) The court erred in submitting this case to the jury because the deceased at the time of the accident was not engaged in interstate transportation. Chicago, B. Q. Railroad Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177, 36 Sup. Ct. 517; Chicago E.I. Railroad Co. v. Industrial Comm., 284 U.S. 296, 52 Sup. Ct. 151; Chicago N.W. Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U.S. 74, 52 Sup. Ct. 59; Stogdill v. Ry. Co., 85 S.W.2d 447; Boles v. Hines, 226 S.W. 272; Capps v. Railroad Co., 101 S.E. 216; Phillips v. Ry. Co., 225 N.W. 106; Fears v. Railroad Co., 86 N.H. 206, 166 A. 283; Gallagher v. N.Y. Cent. Railroad Co., 188 A.D. 88, 167 N.Y.S. 480, affirmed 222 N.Y. 649, 119 N.E. 1044, certiorari denied, 248 U.S. 559, 39 Sup. Ct. 6; Phillips v. B. O. Railroad Co., 287 Pa. 390, 135 A. 102; Kelly v. Railroad Co., 238 F. 95. (2) The court erred in submitting this case to the jury because the evidence was insufficient to charge defendant with any negligence in failing to provide the deceased a reasonably safe place in which to work. Byrd v. Railroad Co., 46 S.W.2d 221; Hamilton v. Ry. Co., 250 Mo. 714; Sexton v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 245 Mo. 255; Boggess v. K.C. Rys. Co., 207 Mo. App. 1. (3) The court erred in refusing to give defendant's instructions A, E and 6 because under the evidence deceased was not engaged in interstate transportation.

  2. Allen v. Railway Company

    53 S.W.2d 884 (Mo. 1932)   Cited 12 times
    Cleaning out sewer, constructed by railroad, to take care of sewage of terminal buildings, and while so engaged blowoff valves on boilers connected with sewer were opened and employee scalded — the steam from these boilers was used to heat buildings in terminal yard, coaches in inter and intrastate transportation while stored in yard, and to create draft in starting fires in locomotives, both inter and intrastate

    No cause of action therefor exists under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and the separate demurrers to each count of the petition, offered at the close of all the evidence, should, for that reason, have been sustained. Railroad Co. v. Bolle, 52 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59; Railroad Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U.S. 439, 59 L.Ed. 1397; Railroad Co. v. Harrington, 241 U.S. 177, 60 L.Ed. 941. This case expressly overrules Erie Railroad Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 77; Erie Railroad Co. v. Szary, 253 U.S. 86; Railroad Co. v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 61 L.Ed. 1070; Shanks v. Railroad Co., 239 U.S. 556, 60 L.Ed. 436; Railroad Co. v. Nash, 242 U.S. 619, 61 L.Ed. 531; (reversing Nash v. Railroad, 154 N.W. 957, 155 N.W. 1102; Hallstein v. Railroad Co., 30 F.2d 594; Railroad Co. v. O'Dell, 252 F. 540; Kelly v. Railroad Co., 238 F. 95, certiorari denied, 243 U.S. 646, 61 L.Ed. 945; Gallagher v. Railroad Co., 167 N.Y.S. 480, affirmed, 119 N.E. 1044. Certiorari denied, 248 U.S. 559, 63 L.Ed. 421; Phillips v. Railroad Co., 177 Minn. 233, 225 N.W. 106, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 587, 74 L.Ed. 635; Kozimko v. Hines, 268 F. 507; Railroad Co. v. Pitchford, 253 F. 736; Spry v. Railroad Co., 50 F.2d 598; Fenstermacher v. Railroad Co., 309 Mo. 475, 274 S.W. 719; Boles v. Hines, 226 S.W. 274; Dunn v. Railroad Co., 190 S.W. 966; Vollmers v. Railroad Co., 119 N.E. 1084, reversing 167 N.Y.S. 426; Tepper v. Railroad Co., 144 N.E. 668; Heed v. Industrial Commission, 122 N.E. 801; Castonguay v. Railroad Co., 100 Atl. (Vt.) 908. (2) The possibility that the sewer on which deceased was working might eventually, if not cleaned out become so completely stopped as to interfere with the free passage of water from the boilers and thereby interfere with their function in generating and supplying steam does not give interstate character to the employment of deceased at the time of his injury. Hallstein v. Railroad Co., 30 F.2d 595; Erie Railroad Co. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303, 61 L.Ed. 324; Onley v. Railroad Co., 36 F.2d 705; Railroad Co. v. Hughes, 278 U

  3. Boyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

    162 Md. 328 (Md. 1932)   Cited 11 times
    Enlarging existing water tank foundation to allow replacement of water tank engine without interruption of water service

    R. Co., 229 U.S. 146, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125. Repairs: Lombardo v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 91 Pa. Super. 307; Wallace v. New York, N.H. H.R. Co., 99 Conn. 404, 121 A. 878; Pallocco v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 N.Y. 110, 140 N.E. 212; Houston T.C.R. Co. v. Long (Tex.Civ.App.), 219 S.W. 212; Newkirk v. Pryor (Mo.App.), 183 S.W. 682; Texas P. Ry. Co. v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App.), 200 S.W. 1149; Chicago, R.I. G. Ry. Co. v. Bernhard (Tex.Civ.App.), 275 S.W. 505. Contra: Phillips v. Balto. O.R. Co., 287 Pa. 390, 135 A. 102; Castonguay v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 91 Vt. 371, 100 A. 908; Phillips v. Chicago N.W.R. Co., 177 Minn. 233, 225 N.W. 106 (reversing same case reported in 173 Minn. 169, 216 N.W. 940); Seaver v. Payne, Director General, 198 App. Div. 423, 190 N YS. 724 (affirmed 234 N.Y. 590, 138 N.E. 458, certiorari denied Sever v. Director General, 261 U.S. 620, 43 S.Ct. 432, 67 L.Ed. 830). Operation: Gruszewsky v. Director General, 96 Conn. 119, 113 A. 160; Ross v. Gordon, 89 Ind. App. 63, 152 N.E. 296; Pallocco v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 N.Y. 110, 140 N.E. 212; Buell v. Hines, Director General, 218 Mich. 353, 188 N.W. 422; Armbruster v. Chicago, R.I.

  4. Boright v. Chicago, Rock Is. Pac. R.R. Co.

    180 Minn. 52 (Minn. 1930)   Cited 19 times

    We have many times held that the trial of a cause of action against a railroad company which is so definitely and materially a part of the railroad business of the state, under conditions comparable with those shown in this case, does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce. State ex rel. Schendel v. District Court, 156 Minn. 380, 194 N.W. 780; Erving v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 171 Minn. 87, 214 N.W. 12; Kobbe v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 173 Minn. 79, 216 N.W. 543; Gegere v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 175 Minn. 96, 220 N.W. 429; Winders v. I. C. R. Co. 177 Minn. 1, 223 N.W. 291, 226 N.W. 213; Phillips v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 177 Minn. 233, 225 N.W. 106; Witort v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 178 Minn. 261, 226 N.W. 934. That the interstate carrier has a considerable mileage and is active in the railroad business of the state is a factor in determining whether an unreasonable burden is imposed upon interstate commerce.

  5. Witort v. Chicago North Western Ry. Co.

    178 Minn. 261 (Minn. 1929)   Cited 3 times

    It concedes that our holdings are adverse to its contention. State ex rel. Schendel v. District Court, 156 Minn. 380, 194 N.W. 780; Erving v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 171 Minn. 87, 214 N.W. 12; Kobbe v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 173 Minn. 79, 216 N.W. 543; Gegere v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 175 Minn. 96, 220 N.W. 429; Winders v. I. C. R. Co. 177 Minn. 1, 223 N.W. 291, 226 N.W. 213; Phillips v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. 177 Minn. 233, 225 N.W. 106. In some of these cases reference is had to the extent of the defendant's railway system in Minnesota.