Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/248/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:41:19+00:00

Document:
Where the state court refused to submit questions to the jury on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the federal right asserted, this Court will analyze the evidence to the extent necessary to give plaintiff in error the benefit of such federal right if it was improperly denied. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601.
The Employers' Liability Act is in pari materia with the Safety Appliance Act, and this Court, following its rulings in regard to the latter, holds that the hauling of empty cars from one state to another is interstate commerce within the meaning of the act. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 146 U. S. 1.
In order to bring the case within the terms of the federal act (35 Stat. 65, c. 149, printed in full in 223 U.S. p. 223 U. S. 6), defendant must have been, at the time of the occurrence in question, engaged as a common carrier in interstate commerce, and plaintiff's intestate must have been employed by said carrier in such commerce. If these facts appeared, the federal act governed to the exclusion of the statutes of the state. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 229 U. S. 158.
pecuniary loss sustained by the beneficiary. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 227 U. S. 68; Gulf, Colorado &c. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173. The state law (Revisal 1908, § 2646) seems not to recognize this limitation upon the measure of recovery; certainly the damages in the present case were assessed without regard to it.
In support of the judgment, it is earnestly argued that the question whether deceased was employed in interstate commerce was not properly raised in the trial court, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the local Code of Civil Procedure. But this is a question of state practice, and since it appears that defendant expressly claimed immunity by reason of the Act of Congress, and the highest court of the state either decided or assumed that the record sufficiently presented a question of federal right, and decided against the party asserting that right, the decisions of this Court render it clear that it is our duty to pass upon the merits of the federal question. Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 155, 187 U. S. 157; Land & Water Co. v. San Jose Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177, 189 U. S. 179; Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291, 204 U. S. 299; Chambers v. Balt. & Ohio R. Co., 207 U. S. 142, 207 U. S. 148; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, decided this day, ante, p. 232 U. S. 236.
deceased was engaged in interstate commerce. This renders it incumbent upon us to analyze the evidence to the extent necessary to give to plaintiff in error the benefit of its asserted federal right. Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 227 U. S. 611, and cases cited.
It is argued that, because, so far as appears, deceased had not previously participated in any movement of interstate freight, and the through cars had not as yet been attached to his engine, his employment in interstate commerce was still in futuro. It seems to us, however, that his acts in inspecting, oiling, firing, and preparing his engine for the trip to Selma were acts performed as a part of interstate commerce, and the circumstance that the interstate freight cars had not as yet been coupled up is legally insignificant. See Pedersen v. Del., Lack. & Western R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, 229 U. S. 151; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 229 U. S. 161.
Again, it is said that, because deceased had left his engine and was going to his boarding house, he was engaged upon a personal errand, and not upon the carrier's business. Assuming (what is not clear) that the evidence fairly tended to indicate the boarding house as his destination, it nevertheless also appears that deceased was shortly to depart upon his run, having just prepared his engine for the purpose, and that he had not gone beyond the limits of the railroad yard when he was struck. There is nothing to indicate that this brief visit to the boarding house was at all out of the ordinary or was inconsistent with his duty to his employer. It seems to us clear that the man was still "on duty," and employed in commerce, notwithstanding his temporary absence from the locomotive engine. See Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 231 U. S. 119.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2646
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.