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)
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.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.