New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Tonsellito

New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Tonsellito, an Infant, Etc.; New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. Tonsellito

N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. Tonsellito, 244 U.S. 360 (1917)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: June 4, 1917
Docket: Nos. 239 and 240
Judges: McReynolds, Brandéis
Citations: 244 U.S. 36037 S. Ct. 62061 L. Ed. 11941917 U.S. LEXIS 1646

Cited by 60 7 descriptions by later courts

Syllabus

In an action under the Federal Employers’Liability Act the questions whether plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce when injured, whether the railroad was negligent, whether he assumed the risk, and whether he was a mere volunteer, will not evoke discussion by this court where there was adequate evidence upon them for submission to the jury, where there was no evident, material error in the charge, where both state courts below have sustained the judgment, and no special circumstances are present demanding comment. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not allow the father a right of action for expenses and loss of service resulting from his minor son’s injuries in addition to the son’s right of action. The rights of action provided by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act are exclusive as to the cases which it covers and no other can be added by the law of a State. New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, ante, 147.

Summary

ERROR TO THE COURT OP ERRORS AND APPEALS OP THE STATE OP NEW JERSEY. The case is stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

By stipulation, these causes were tried together before the same jury and upon the same testimony. Michael *361 Tonsellito, an infant seventeen years old, suing by his father, James Tonsellito, as next friend and relying upon the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, obtained a judgment for personal injuries suffered while employed by plaintiff in error — Number 239. These injuries, he alleged, resulted from negligence in constructing and maintaining its road-bed and in starting a locomotive without giving him a reasonable opportunity to climb thereon. James Tonsellito recovered for himself on account of expenses incurred for medical attention to his son and loss of the latter’s services — Number 240. Both judgments were affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals. 87 N. J. L. 651.

Reversal is asked in the cause instituted by Michael Tonsellito because (1) he was not engaged in interstate commerce when injured; (2) no negligence by the railroad was shown; (3) he assumed the risk; and (4) he was a mere volunteer when the accident occurred. We think there was adequate evidence to justify submission of all these matters to the jury; and we are unable to say the charge contains material error. Both state courts have sustained the judgment; there are no special circumstances demanding comment; and it seems enough to announce our conclusion.

Great Northern Ry. Co.

v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464, 466 ;

Erie Railroad Co.

v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303 .

The Court of Errors and Appeals ruled, and it is now maintained, that the right of action asserted by the father existed at common law and was not taken away by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. But the contrary view, we thinkj is clearly- settled by our recent opinions in New York Central R. R. Co.

v. Winfield ante, 147, and Erie Railroad Co.

v. Winfield, ante, 170. There we held the act “is comprehensive and, also, exclusive” in respect of a railroad’s liability for injuries suffered" by its employees while engaging in interstate commerce. “It establishes a rule or regulation which is intended to op *362 erate uniformly in all the States, as respects interstate commerce, and in that field it is both paramount and exclusive.” Congress having declared when, how far, and to whom carriers shall be liable on account of accidents, in the specified class, such liability can neither be extended nor abridged by common or statutory laws of the State.

The judgment in Number 239 is Affirmed.

In Number 240 the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Brandéis concurs in the result announced in No. 240.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that FELA is “comprehensive and also exclusive in respect of a railroad’s liability for injuries suffered by its employees while engaging in interstate commence” (quotation omitted))

Boyd v. BNSF Ry. Co., 858 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
(FELA precludes claim brought by father for “loss of services” of minor son injured in course of employment with railroad)

Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 15 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 1994)
(jury not entitled to consider damages for non-railroad employees)

Debiasio v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 52 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 1995)

Cited by 60 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

A. Aida Kelsaw v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah Corporation686 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1982)
Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corp.15 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 1994)
Rogers v. Consolidated Rail Corp.688 F. Supp. 835 (N.D.N.Y. 1988)
Dallas Wildman v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company825 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1987)
Katherine Anderson v. Burlington Northern, Inc.469 F.2d 288 (10th Cir. 1972)
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company858 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)

Most recent

Dannels v. BNSF2021 MT 71, 483 P.3d 495
Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company858 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Kinzer v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville451 F. Supp. 2d 931 (M.D. Tenn. 2006)
In re Estate of Gearhart584 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 1998)
Joe Stiffarm v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation81 F.3d 170 (9th Cir. 1996)
Bouchet v. Texas Mexican Railway Co.915 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Erie R.R. v. Welsh, 242 U.S. 303 (1917)	131
	Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U.S. 464 (1916)	34

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list