Case Name: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Catherine Gehan, Claimant, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-05-16
Citations: 205 A.D. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Catherine Gehan, Claimant, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 554–559

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Board, Respondent. Catherine Gehan, Claimant, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Third Department,
May 16, 1923.
Workmen’s compensation — interstate commerce — yard brakeman of railroad killed while coupling empty cars — part of cars were on way from points in Pennsylvania to East Buffalo — not shown that empty interstate cars might have been used in intrastate traffic — employee was engaged in interstate commerce.
A yard brakeman who was killed while coupling empty ears to make up a train to be hauled from a point within this State to Bast Buffalo is engaged in interstate commerce, where it appears that some of the empty cars of which the train was composed were on their way from points in Pennsylvania to Bast Buffalo; that said interstate cars went forward to their destination in the train which was being made up at the time of the accident; and that it was not shown whether or not the interstate cars could have been used as desired for local intrastate shipments.
Kilby, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central Railroad Company, from an award of the State Industrial Board, made on the 14th day of July, 1922.
Visscher, Whalen, Loucks & Murphy [Robert E. Whalen of counsel], for the appellant.
Carl Sherman, Attorney-General [Edson W. Hamm and E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.

Opinion:
H. T. Kellogg, Acting P. J.:
The claimant's husband was employed by the New York Central Railroad Company as a yard brakeman. He received an injury from which he died while at work in the railroad yards of his employer at Thompson Station, about two miles south of Lyons, N. Y. He was at the time engaged in coupling empty cars to make up a train to be hauled from Thompson Station to Lyons. Eight of the cars which were to form the train had arrived at Thompson Station from Newberry Junction, Penn., some two weeks previously. They had made the journey in two train runs. The first run was from Newberry Junction, Penn., to Corning, N. Y., and the second run was from Corning, N. Y., to Thompson Station, N. Y. The conductor upon the first run testified that their destination was East Buffalo, N. Y., and that he got this information " off the running slip." The conductor on the second run testified that their destination was East Buffalo, N. Y., and that he got this information " from the way bill " which accompanied the cars. The yardmaster at Lyons, who with the help of the claimant's husband, placed the cars in the train for Lyons, N. Y., testified that " running slips " accompanied each of the cars; that these " running slips " were in his charge for the time being; that they showed that the cars came from Pennsylvania and were destined for East Buffalo, N. Y.; that the cars went " forward to their destination " as intended. He stated that a running slip " is a card showing where a car originates and its destination, also the movement of the car for the information of the conductor." The train pulled out with the eight cars for Lyons, N. Y., and it is not disputed that the journey thus begun was taken in furtherance of getting them to destination at East Buffalo, N. Y. The yardmaster stated that he " sent them on to East Buffalo." The "running slips " or the " way bill " which accompanied the cars evidently constituted directions to various train hands and car handlers to convey the cars in question from Newberry Junction, Penn., to East Buffalo, N. Y. If it was consonant with these directions that the cars while intermediate the two interstate points might be used as desired for local intrastate shipments, that fact was not proven. As the evidence stands the cars were making one continuous interstate trip from Newberry Junction, Penn., to East Buffalo, N. Y., and their stop at Thompson Station was a mere interruption in such a journey. Therefore, the claimant's husband was engaged in interstate commerce when maldng up the train at Thompson Station and the claimant was not entitled to an award of death benefits for his death which was then occasioned. (Kinsella v. New York Central R. R. Co., 186 App. Div. 856.)
The award should be reversed and the claim remitted to the State Industrial Board.
Van Kirk, Hinman and Hasbrotjck, JJ., concur; Kiley, J.,dissents, with an opinion.