delivered the opinion of the court.
Carr was a brakeman on a “pick-up” freight train running from Rochester to Lockport over the lines of the New York Central. On November 18, 1910, some of the cars in this train contained interstate freight. Among those engaged in purely intrastate business were the two
*262
cars, at the head of the train and next to the engine, which were to be left at North Tonawanda, New York. On arriving at that point they were uncoupled from the train, pulled by the enginе down the track, and then backed into a siding. It was the duty of one brakeman (O’Brien), to uncouple the air hose from the engine, and for the other (Carr) to set the handbrakes in оrder to prevent the two cars from rolling down upon the main track. O’Brien, having failed tо open the gauge to the stop-cock,. suddenly and negligently “broke” the air hose. The result was that the sudden escape of air, — applied only in cases of emergency — violently turned the wheel handle attached to the brake which Carr at thе time was attempting to set. The wrench threw Carr to- the ground and for the injuries thus suffered he brоught suit in a state court. If the case was to be governed by the law of New York he was nоt entitled to recover, since the injury was'due to the negligence of O’Brien, a fellоw-servant. He did recover a verdict under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and, the judgmеnt thereon paving been affirmed (
The Railroad Company insists, that when the two cars were cut out of the train and backed into a siding, they lost their interstate charactеr, so that Carr while working thereon was engaged in intrastate commerce and not entitled to recover under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The scope of thаt statute is so broad that it covers a vast field about which there can be no discussion. But owing to the fact that, during the same day, railroad employés often and rapidly pаss from one class of employment to another, the courts are constantly сalled upon to decide those close questions where it is difficult to define the linе which divides the State from interstate business. The present case is an instance of that kind — and many arguments have been advanced by the Railway Company
*263
to support its contention that, as these two cars had been cut out of the interstate train and рut upon a siding, it could not be said that one working thereon was employed in interstatе commerce. But the matter is not to be decided by considering the physical position of the employé at the moment of injury. If he is hurt in the course of his employment while going to a car to perform an interstate duty; or if he is injured while preparing an engine for an interstate trip he is entitled to the benefits of the Federal Act, although the accident occurred prior to the actual coüpling of the engine to thе interstate cars.
St. Louis &c. Ry.
v.
Seale,
The plaintiff was a brakeman on an interstate train. As such, it was a рart of his duty to assist in the switching, backing and uncoupling of the two cars so that they might be left on a siding in order that the interstate train might proceed on its journey. In performing this duty it was neсessary to set the brake of the car still attached to the interstate engine,' sо that, when uncoupled, the latter might return to the interstate train and proceed with it, with Cаrr and the other interstate employés, on its interstate journey.
The case is entirely different from that of
Ill. Cent. R. R.
v.
Behrens,
Affirmed.'