TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lindstrom v. New York Central Railroad Company

Fred Lindstrom, Respondent, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant

Lindstrom v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 130 N.E. 890 (N.Y. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 16, 1920
Citations
130 N.E. 890230 N.Y. 5511920 N.Y. LEXIS 602
Headnotes
Negligence — master and servant — railroads•—cleaner of locomotives used in interstate commerce is engaged in interstate commerce while riding on the engine on its way to the cleaning station.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 20, 1919, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action, under the Federal Employers’. Liability Act, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff was employed in cleaning fires on locomotives. On the night of the accident the ash pit at Geneva, where he was usually employed, was out of order and he was directed to go with the engines to a near-by station and clean them there. On the way a collision occurred and plaintiff was injured. It was conceded that the engines were used in interstate commerce. The question was whether plaintiff while cleaning them was so engaged. The Appellate Division held “ that the plaintiff, at the time he was injured, while on his way to his work on an engine provided by the defendant, was in the service of the defendant; that he ‘was engaged when doing his regular work in both interstate and intrastate commerce; that his trip on the engine from Geneva to Thompsons to his work was a necessary incident of his service and of the nature of his work as a whole; and that he was, therefore, at the time engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the act.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11931: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bezue v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad176 N.E. 828 (N.Y. 1931)
  2. Listorti v. New York Central Railroad224 A.D. 691 (1928) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Bezue v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad176 N.E. 828 (N.Y. 1931)
  2. Listorti v. New York Central Railroad224 A.D. 691 (1928) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list