• Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (Volume 223)

Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (Volume 223)

Paperback

Currently unavailable to order

ISBN10: 1154993175
ISBN13: 9781154993172
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 280
Weight: 1.11
Height: 0.59 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1918. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... [323 N. Y.] Opinion, per Andrews, J. [May, nected with an interstate car and while seeking new orders he was injured. Although his new orders, had he received them, would have required him to again engage in interstate commerce, the Supreme Court held that at the time of the injury he was not so engaged. The true test is the nature of the work being done at the time of the injury, and the mere expectation that plaintiff would presently be called upon to perform a task in interstate commerce is not sufficient to bring the case within the act. Had the switch engine upon which Knowles worked been engaged, now in interstate, now in intrastate commerce, and had he been injured after finishing one job and before beginning another, this case would be in point. The real question here, however, is not that of a servant passing from hour to hour from one class of employment to another, but of a servant, upon his master's property, on his way to presently perform duties connected with interstate commerce. While the test is the nature of the work done at the time of the injury, the Supreme Court had held (North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248) that this rule is not to be construed so narrowly as to require the servant to be actually engaged in work connected with interstate commerce at the precise moment when the accident occurs. If that is his general employment, his temporary absence while still on his employer's premises, not inconsistent with his duties, is immaterial. A later case (Erie Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170, 173) is, however, decisive in principle of the question before us. A servant having finished his work and in leaving the railroad yards was killed. It was held that he had been employed in interstate commerce; and the cour...