Court : US Supreme Court
..... court of errors and appeals of the state of new jersey syllabus the duty of interstate railroad carriers to make compensation for injury or death of their employees in interstate commerce is regulated uniformly and exclusively by the federal employers' liability act, and is thereby confined to cases of causal negligence. ..... in her favor was entered, but was reversed by the supreme court of the state, which concluded that the deceased's employment at the time of the injury was in interstate commerce, and that the case was controlled by the employers' liability act page 244 u. s. ..... was in turn reversed by the court of errors and appeals, which, although assuming "that the conclusion of the supreme court as to the character" of the deceased's employment at the time of the injury "was justified by the facts proved," regarded the federal act as without bearing because affording no remedy and imposing no liability in the absence of causal negligence. 88 n.j.l. ..... the questions presented for decision are these: first, whether the federal act is regulative of the carrier's liability or obligation in every instance of the injury or death of one of its employees in interstate commerce, or only in those instances where there is causal negligence for which the carrier ..... to a different principle which rejects negligence as a basis of liability and requires compensation to be made by the employer wherever the injury or death of the employee is an incident of the service in which he is employed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... employers' liability act, congress used the words "employee" and "employed" in their natural sense, and intended to describe the conventional relation of employer and employe. ..... of appeals of the state of maryland syllabus the terms "employee" and "employed" in the employers' liability act are used in their natural sense, importing the conventional relation of employer and employee. p. ..... one company did not become an employee of the other within the meaning of the employers' liability act, while so operating on the other's line. id. ..... the federal employers' liability act does not require that a person shall be in the exclusive employ of a railroad common carrier in order ..... enacted, as the federal employers' liability act was, to bring the united states law up to the humanitarian ..... in a state court of maryland under the federal employers' liability act of april 22, 1908, c. ..... it is clear that each company retained control of its own train crews, that what the latter did upon the line of the other road was done as a part of their duty to the general employer, and that, so far as they were subject while upon the tracks of the other company to its rules, regulations, discipline, and orders, this was for the purpose of coordinating their movements to ..... verdict in favor of defendant, the court of appeals of maryland affirmed the resulting judgment upon the ground that the deceased, at the time he was killed, was not in the employ of defendant within the meaning of the act of congress, 132 md. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the term " negligence," as used in 1 of the federal employers' liability act, includes an assault on one of a crew of workmen by a foreman authorized to direct them and keep them at work where the purpose of the assault was to hurry the workman assaulted about work assigned him. id. 3. ..... a stevedore employed in loading cargo on navigable waters is a seaman within the meaning of 33 of the merchant marine act, and his right of action for personal injuries suffered while so engaged is governed by the maritime law as modified by that act and the federal employers' liability act. p. ..... 52 , said: "as the word 'seamen' in the act [ 33, merchant marine act] includes 'stevedores,' so the word 'negligence' [ 1, federal employers' liability act] should . . . ..... 218, held that the federal employers' liability act applies and, after quoting the language of this court in international stevedoring co. v. ..... as the federal employers' liability act does not create liability without fault ( seaboard air line ry. v. ..... " section 1 of the federal employers' liability act provides: "that every common carrier by railroad while engaging in [interstate] commerce . . . ..... 688, and the federal employers' liability act of april 22, 1908, 45 u.s.c. 51-59. ..... the federal employers' liability act is to be construed liberally to fulfill the purposes for which it was enacted, and, to that end, the word "negligence " may be read to include all the meanings given to it by courts and within the word as ordinarily used. id. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the first paragraph, petitioner alleged that, at the time of the injuries, he was employed in interstate commerce, and that he brought the action under the acts of congress known as the federal employers' liability act [ footnote 1 ] and the safety appliance acts, [ footnote 2 ] and the rules and orders which the interstate commerce commission had promulgated ..... (1) that, at the time of the injuries, petitioner was not employed in interstate commerce, and hence the action would not lie under the federal employers' liability act, and (2) that respondent was a corporation organized under the laws of virginia and an inhabitant of the eastern district of virginia, and hence, so far as the action rested upon the safety appliance acts of congress and the rules and orders of the interstate commerce commission, ..... thus, the second count of the complaint, in invoking the federal safety appliance acts, while declaring on the kentucky employers' liability act, cannot be regarded as setting up a claim which lay outside the purview ..... court has said that the statutes are in pari materia, and that, "where the employers' liability act refers to 'any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines ..... as in the analogous case under the federal employers' liability act, a violation of the acts for the safety of employees was to constitute negligence per se in applying the state statute, and was to furnish the ground for precluding the defense of contributory negligence as well as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... pitcairn, decided this day, holds that an action is not commenced within two years of the date of injury in a court of competent jurisdiction, as prescribed by section 6 of the federal employers' liability act, by transferring the cause from a city court having no jurisdiction of the subject matter at a date when the action, if instituted originally on such date in the circuit court, could not be maintained ..... decided this day, holds that an action is not commenced within two years of the date of injury in a court of competent jurisdiction, as prescribed by section 6 of the federal employers' liability act, by transferring the cause from a city court having no jurisdiction of the subject matter at a date when the action, if instituted originally on such date in the circuit court, could not be ..... that petitioners here are to be required to file new suits, and that the two year limitation of section 6 of the federal employers' liability act applies to injuries resulting from violation of the safety appliance act, it still must be determined whether filing these suits in the city courts "commenced" actions within the meaning of that word as ..... 117 certiorari to the supreme court of illinois syllabus the records in these cases under the federal employers' liability act being ambiguous as to whether the state court judgments of dismissal rest on a federal ground or on an adequate state ground, it is appropriate in the circumstances that the causes be continued for such period as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 205 , wherein it was held that neither the federal employers' liability act nor the state compensation statute applied to a railroad employee engaged in loading a vessel of the company which had no relation to its railroading operations. ..... this certiorari requires us to determine which federal industrial accident statute -- the federal employers' liability act or the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act -- applies to the circumstances of this case. ..... whether or not the harbor workers act applies to the exclusion of the employers' liability act by virtue of the provisions of 33 u.s.c. ..... we would treat this railroad employee as being in law what he was in real life, a railroad brakeman, engaged in interstate commerce and subject to the federal employers' liability act, and affirm this judgment. ..... respondent's suit under the federal employers' liability act was dismissed by the district court on the ground that the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act applied exclusively. ..... if he was, then the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act applies, and not the federal employers' liability act. ..... the federal employers' liability act, 51, note 1 supra, gives a right of recovery due to defects because page 344 u. s. ..... it was brought under the federal employers' liability act, 35 stat. 65, 45 u.s.c. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... commerce business of railroads would have as much justification, but no more, as it would have for congress to pass a federal employers' liability act for all employees who further large enterprises in the conduct of their interstate commerce. ..... amendatory legislation was addressed to judicial distinctions affecting these transportation workers that bore no practical relation to the essential conditions of their employment; these distinctions never touched others in a totally different category of employment because the federal employers' liability act never remotely applied to them. ..... 511 clause whereby it confined application of the federal employers' liability act to injuries sustained by an employee if, at the moment of injury, his work was related to ..... the whole course of history of the federal employers' liability act, as well as due regard for the text of the amendment of 1939, in its entire context, calls for affirmance of the ..... , we should be mindful of the central concern of the body of enactments that constitute the federal employers' liability act throughout all the vicissitudes of the legislation. ..... company with the court not in its reading of english, but in its assumption that the construction of the amendment to the federal employers' liability act is merely a matter of reading english. ..... on the presupposition of this cardinal distinction between transportation and nontransportation employees of railroads that the federal employers' liability act was amended in 1939. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the court, however, held that the union was subject to sherman act liability on the facts of the case, as there were "industrywide understandings looking not merely to terms and conditions of employment, but also to price and market control. ..... moreover, the evidence most often available to sustain antitrust liability under the court's theory would show, as it did in pennington, simply that the motives of the union and employer coincide -- the union seeking high wages and protection from low-wage, nonunion competition, and the employer who pays high wages seeking protection from competitors who pay lower wages. ..... the plain fact is that is makes no sense to turn antitrust liability of employers and unions concerning subjects of mandatory bargaining on whether the union acted "unilaterally" or in "agreement" with employers. ..... [ footnote 2/18 ] this rule flows directly from the hutcheson holding that a union, acting as a union, in the interests of its members, and not acting to fix prices or allocate markets in aid of an employer conspiracy to accomplish these objects, with only indirect union benefits, is not subject to challenge under the antitrust laws. ..... yet the court makes antitrust liability for both unions and employers turn on which of these two systems is used. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... , or 505 of title 32, the department of defense, the armed forces retirement home, or the central intelligence agency in the performance of medical, dental, or related health care functions (including clinical studies and investigations) while acting within the scope of his duties or employment therein or therefor shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against such physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical or other supporting personnel (or the estate ..... under its current reading, the liability reform act does indeed override the gonzalez act save in two slim applications: if a military doctor employed by the united states is sued in a foreign court, or is detailed to a non-federal institution, indemnification of the doctor under 1089(f)(1) would remain possible. ..... adopting the government s construction of the liability reform act, we held in smith that 2679(b)(1) grants all federal employees, including medical personnel, immunity for acts within the scope of their employment, even when an ftca exception (such as 2680(k)) left the plaintiff without a remedy against the united states. ..... congress subsequently enacted comprehensive legislation, the federal employees liability reform and tort compensation act (liability reform act), which makes the ftca s remedy against the united states exclusive for torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, 28 u. s. c. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... ;provided that a policy shall not except as may be otherwise provided under sub-section (3) be required-(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-(a) engaged in driving ..... out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:provided that a policy shall not be required-(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-(a) engaged in driving .....
Tag this Judgment!