Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-10-11
RAILROAD CASES
AREDETERMINED
Dauphin, Lebanon and Cum
berland Claims Governed
by Federal Decisions

The State Compensation Board to-
day handed down q series of opinions
ruling on claims for compensation
growing out of railroad employment
in which precedents are established.
In over a dozen cases, however. the
board sustains appeals by the Read
ing and other companies on the
ground that the companies are en-
gagged in interstate commerce.
In a Philadelphia case it is held
that man painting a signal bridge
was employed in maintenance of n
part of a railroad used for interstate
commerce and the award set aside
as is done in the case of the claim
of the widow of n Greenville man
killed while pushing a truck along a
platform to unload mail. 1t is held
that such work was part of inter-
state commerce. In a Franklin coun-
ty case IL is held that the Western
Maryland did not make good its con-
tention that a flagman had been kill
ed while engaged in interstate COM
merce. 1t is held that the traffic
must be shown mot by mere aver
ment but substantial testimony" In
the case of Green VS.. Reading Rail-
way, Philadelphia, an award is set
aside on the ground that the deceas-
ed employe, going to get his pay. and
while waiting on the company S
premises to receive it. was engaged
in interstate commerce" 1t is held
in the case of Duffy VS.. Reading
Railway. Philadelphia, that he was
entitled to compensation. He had
been unloading a car containing some
shipments from outside of the state
and all such shipments had been un-
loaded, leaving steel consigned from
Norristown to Erie. Some of this
steel injured a foot. 1t is held that
the character of the freight handled
at the time of the injury must govern
the case.
A rule was made in the case of
Zenco, Wilmington, VS.. Reading
Railway, is that n yardmaster stated
that tracks were used for hauling
all kinds of freight and from all sec
tions of the country, but mo testi-
mony was offered to. show that the
witness was provided as yardmaster
to know the character of the freight
which passed over these tracks u"
This statement is held not to be suf-
ficient.
Awards are set aside in these cases
because of interstate commerce.:
Belluccio VS.. Lehigh Valley Rail-
road, Schuylkill; Beaumont VS.. Phil
adelphia and Reading, Schuylkill;
Grafiey VS.. Reading, Bucks; Kraft VS..
Reading, Lehigh; zimmerman VS..
Reading, Northumberland, in which
conductor was making up mixed
train near Mt. Carmel; Pyles vs..
Western Maryland, Somerset; Cald-
well VS.. Reading, Philadelphia, in
which an injury was received while
unloading a steamer at Port Rich
mond; Fenstermacher and Shealer
VS.. Reading, Dauphin; Smoke VS..
Reading, Lebanon, in which a watch
man was killed at a grade crossing;
Hufnagel VS.. Perkiomen Railroad,
Lehigh: Shelter and Dutrey VS..
Reading, Cumberland, the latter a
case wherein a man was killed while
oiling switches in Harrisburg yards,
a duty held to be "a necessary part
of the repair and maintenance of the
track over which interstate COM
merce habitually passed"
In Cappro VS.. McCahan Sugar Re-
.ining Company, Philadelphia, the
board holds that it cannot set aside
an agreement voluntarily entered in
to between the parties under a mis-
apprehension Of the law with respect
to the rights of compensation for
an employe injured while engaged in
maretime pursuits, although it has
authority to set aside a claim made
against an employer engaged in ship
ping.
In Jenson VS.. Atlantic Refining
Company, it is held that the board
can include days when an employe
was prevented from working through
illness as days when he could not
work through no fault of his own.