244 U.S. 147 | SCOTUS | 1916
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
While in the service of a railroad company in the State of New York, James Winfield sustained a personal injury
It is settled that under the commerce clause of the Constitution Congress may regulate the obligation of common carriers and the rights of their employees arising out of injuries sustained by the latter where both are engaged in interstate commerce; and it also is settled' that when Congress acts upon the subject all state laws covering the same field are necessarily superseded by reason of the supremacy of- the national authority.
In our opinion the latter view is right and the other wrong. Whether and in what circumstances railroad companies engaging in interstate commerce shall be required to compensate their employees in such commerce for injuries sustained therein are matters in which the Nation as a whole is interested and there are weighty considerations why the controlling law should be uniform and not change at every state line. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 378-379. It was largely in recognition of this that the Employers’ Liability Act was enacted by Congress. Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 51. It was drafted and passed shortly follow
True, the act does not require the carrier to respond for injuries occurring where it is not chargeable with negligence, but this is because Congress, in its discretion, acted upon the principle that compensation should be exacted from the carrier .where, and only where, the injury results from negligence imputable to it. Every part of the act conforms to this principle, and no part points to any purpose to leave the States free to require compensation where the act withholds it. By declaring in § 1 that the carrier shall be liable in damages for an injury to the employee “resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier,
That the act is comprehensive and also exclusive is distinctly recognized in repeated decisions of- this court. Thus, in Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 576, and other cases, it is pointed out that the subject which the act covers is “the responsibility of
The act is entitled, “An Act Relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employees in certain cases,” and the suggestion is made that the words “in
Only by disturbing the uniformity which the act is designed to secure and by departing from the principle which it is intended to enforce can the several States require such carriers to compensate their employees for injuries in interstate commerce occurring without negligence. But no State is at liberty thus to interfere with the operation of a law of Congress. As before indicated, it is a mistake to suppose that injuries occurring without negligence are not reached or affected by the act, for, as is said in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 617, “if Congress have a constitutional power to regulate a particular subject, and they do actually regulate it in a given manner, and in a certain form, it cannot be that the state legislatures have a right to interfere, and, as it were, by way of complement to the legislation of Congress, to prescribe additional regulations, and what they may deem auxiliary provisions for the same purpose. In such a case, the legislation of Congress, in what it does prescribe, manifestly indicates that it does not intend that there shall be any farther legislation to act upon the subject-matter. Its silence as to what it does not do, is as expressive of what its intention is as the direct provisions made by it.” Thus the act is as comprehensive of injuries occurring without negligence, as to which class it impliedly excludes liability, as it is of those as to which it imposes liability. In other words, it is a regulation , of the carriers’ duty or obligation as to both. And the reasons which operate to prevent the
■ It follows that in the present case the award under the state law cannot be sustained.
Judgment reversed.
See New York Central R. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188.
Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 53-55; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702; St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Devine, 239
The act is printed in full in Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 6-10.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the court; and the importance of the question involved induces me to state the reasons.
By the Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, Congress provided, in substance, that railroads engaged in interstate commerce shall be liable in damages for their negligence resulting in injury or death of employees while so engaged. The majority of the court now holds that by so doing Congress manifested its will to cover the whole field of compensation or relief for injuries suffered by railroad employees engaged in interstate commerce; or, at least, the whole field of obligation of carriers relating thereto; and that it thereby withdrew the subject wholly from the domain of state action. In other words the majority of the court declares, that Congress by passing the Employers’ Liability Act prohibited States from including within the protection of their general Workmen’s Compensation Laws employees who without fault on the railroad’s part are injured or killed while engaged in interstate commerce; although Congress itself offered them no protection. That Congress could have done this is clear. The question presented is: Has Congress done so? Has Congress so willed?
The Workmen’s Compensation Law of New York here in question has been declared by this court to be among those which “bear so close a relation to the protection of the lives and safety of those concerned that they properly
1. “In conferring upon Congress the regulation of commerce, it was never intended to cut the States off from legislating on all subjects relating to the health, life, and safety of their citizens, though the legislation might indirectly affect the commerce of the country.” Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 103.
2. “If the purpose of the act cannot otherwise be accomplished — if its operation within its chosen field else must be frustrated and its provisions be refused their natural effect — the state, law must yield to regulation of Congress within the sphere of its delegated power. . . .
“But the intent to supersede the exercise by the State of its police power as to matters not covered by the Federal legislation is not to be inferred from the mere fact that Congress has seen fit to circumscribe its regulation and to occupy a limited field. In other words, such intent is not to be implied unless the act of Congress fairly interpreted is in actual conflict with the law of the State.” Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533.
3. “The question must of course be determined with reference to the settled rule that á statute enacted in execution of a reserved power of the State is not to be regarded as inconsistent with an act of Congress passed in the execution of a clear power under the Constitution, unless the repugnance or conflict is so direct and positive that the two acts cannot be reconciled or stand together.” Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 623.
Guided by these rules and the cases in which they have
To ascertain the intent we must look, of course, first at what Congress has said; then at the action it has taken, or omitted to take: We look at the words of the statute to see whether Congress has used any, which m terms express that will. We enquire whether, without the use of explicit words, that will is expressed in specific action taken. For Congress must be presumed to have intended the necessary consequences of its action. And if we find that its will is not expressed, or is not clearly expressed, either in words or by specific action, we should look at the circumstances under which the Employers’ Liability Act was passed; look, on the one hand, at its origin,-.scope and purpose; and, .on the other, at the nature, methods and means of state Workmen’s Compensation Laws. If the will is not clearly expressed in words we must consider all these, in order to determine what Congress intended.
First — As to words used: The act contains no words expressing a will by Congress to cover the whole field of compensation or relief for injuries received by or for death of such employees while engaged in interstate commerce; or the whole field of carriers’ obligations in relation thereto. The language of the act, so far as it indicates anything in this respect, points to just the contrary. For its title is: “An Act Relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employees in certain cases.”
Third — As to origin, purpose and scope of the Employers’ Liability Act and the nature, methods and means of state Workmen’s Compensation Laws: The facts are of common knowledge. Do they manifest that, by entering upon one section of the field of indemnity or relief for injuries or death suffered by employees engaged in interstate commerce, Congress purposed to occupy the whole field?
(A) The origin of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act:
By the common law as administered in the several States, the employee, like every other member of the community, was expected to bear the risks necessarily attendant upon life and work; subject only to the right to be indemnified for any loss inflicted by wrongdoers. The employer, like every other member of the community, was in theory liable to all others for loss resulting from his wrongs; the scope of his liability for wrongs being amplified by the doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal liability, which in theory applied between employer and employee as well as between others, came, in course of'
(B) The scope of the Federal Employers' Liability Act:
(1.) The act leaves uncovered a large part of the injuries which result from the railroads’ negligence. The decision of this, court in the first Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, had declared that Congress lacked power to legislate in respect to any injuries occurring otherwise than to employees engaged in interstate commerce. Later decisions disclose how large a part of- the injuries resulting from the railroads’ negligence are thus excluded from the operation of the federal law. For the act was held to apply only to those directly engaged in interstate commerce. This excludes not only those engaged' in intrastate commerce, but also the many who— while engaged on work for interstate commerce, as in repairing engines or cars — are not directly engaged in it. Likewise it excludes employees who, though habitually engaged directly in interstate commerce, happen to be injured or killed through the railroads’ negligence, while performing some work in intrastate commerce.
(2.) The act leaves uncovered all of the injuries which, result. otherwise than from the railroad’s negligence, though occurring when the employee is engaged directly in interstate commerce.
The scope of the act is so narrow as to preclude the belief that thereby Congress intended to deny to the States
(C) The purpose of the Employers’ Liability Act:
The facts showing the origin and scope of the act discussed above indicate also its purpose. It was to end the denial of the right to damages for injuries due to the railroads’ negligence — a right denied under judicial decisions through the interposition of the defenses of fellow-servant, assumption of risk and contributory negligence. It was not the purpose of the a'ct to deny to the States the power to grant the wholly new right to protection or relief in the case of injuries suffered otherwise than through fault of the railroads.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act was, in no respect, a.departure from the individualistic basis of right add'of liability. It was, on the contrary, an attempt to .enforce truly and impartially the old conception of justice as between individuals. The common-law liability for fault was to be restored by removing the abuses which prevented its full and just operation. The liability of the employer, under the federal áct as at common law, is merely a penalty for wrong doing. The remedy assured to thé employee is merely a more efficient means of making the wrongdoer indemnify him whom he has wronged. This limited purpose of the Employers’ Liability Act precludes the belief that Congress intended thereby to deny tó the States the power to provide compensation, or relief for injuries not covered by the act.
(D) The nature of Workmen’s Compensation Acts:
In the effort to remove abuses, a study had been made of facts; and of the world’s experience in dealing with industrial accidents. That study uncovered as fiction many an assumption upon which American judges and lawyers had rested comfortably. The conviction became widespread, that our individualistic conception of rights and liability no longer furnished an adequate basis for dealing
Can it be contended that Congress by simply passing the Employers’ Liability Act prohibited the States from providing in any way for the maintenánce of such employees (and their dependents) for whose injuries a railroad, innocent of all fault, could not be called upon to make indemnity under that act? It is the State which is both primarily and ultimately concerned with the care of the injured and of those dependent.upon him; even though the accident may occur while the employee is engaged directly in interstate commerce. Upon the State falls the financial burden of dependency, if, provision bé not otherwise made. Upon the State falls directly the far heavier burden of the demoralization of its citizenry, and of the social unrest, which attend destitution and the denial of opportunity. Upon the State also rests under our dual system of government the duty owed to the individual, to avert misery and promote happiness so far as possible. Surely we may not impute to Congress the will to deny to the States the power to perform either this duty to humanity or their fundamental duty of self-preservation. And if the States are left-free to provide compensation, what is there in the Employers’ Liability Act to show an intent on the part of Congress to deny to them the power to make the provision by raising the necessary contributions, in the first instance, through employers?
(E) Methods and 'means of Workmen’s Compensation Laws:
The principle underlying Workmen’s Compensation Laws is the same in all the. States. The methods and means by which that principle is carried out vary -materially. The principle is that of insurance, the premiums
What methods and means the State shall adopt in order to provide compensation for injuries to citizens or residents where Congress has left it free to legislate, rests (subject to constitutional limitations) wholly within the judgment of the State.. It might conclude, in view of the hazard involved, that no one should engage in the occupation of railroading without providing against the financial consequences of accidents through contributing .an adequate amount to an accident insurance fund. It might conclude that it was wise to make itself the necessary contributions to such a fund, out of monies raised from general taxation. Or it might conclude, as the State of Washington did, that the fairest and wisest form of taxation for the purpose was to impose upon the employer directly the duty of making the required contributions — relying upon the laws of trade to effect, through the medium of transportation charges, an equitable distribution of the burden.. The method last suggested is pursued in substance also by the State of New York. In its essence the laws of the States are the same in this respect, as is shown in Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219. It is misleading to speak of the new obligation of the employer to contribute to compensation for injuries to workmen as an increase of the.“employer’s liability.” It is not a liability for a violation of a duty. It is a direct — a primary — obligation in the nature of a tax. And the right
(F) Federal and State legislation are not in conflict.
The practical difficulty of determining in a particular case, according to presence or absence of railroad fault, whether indemnity is to be sought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act or under a state compensation law — affords, of course, no reason for imputing to Congress the will to deny to the States power to afford relief through such a system. The difficulty and uncertainty is, at worst, no greater than that which now exists in so many cases where it is necessary to determiné whether the employee was, at the time of the accident, engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce.
We are admonished also by another weighty consideration not to impute to Congress the will to deny to the States this power. The súbject of compensation for
The contention that Congress has, by legislating on one branch of a subject relative to interstate commerce, preempted the whole field — has been made often in this court; and, as the cases above cited show, has been repeatedly rejected in cases where.the will of Congress to leave the balance of the field open to state-action was far-less clear than under the circumstances here considered. Tested by those decisions and by the rules which this court has framed for its guidance, I am of opinion, as was said in Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 294, that: “The intent to supersede the exercise of the State’s police power with respect to this subject cannot be inferred from the restricted action which thus far has been taken.” The field covered by Congress was a limited field of the carrier’s liability for negligence, not the whole field of the carrier’s.obligation arising from accidents. I find no justification for imputing to Congress the will to deny to a large class of persons engaged in a necessarily'
The following cases show that Congress, in legislating upon a particular subject of interstate commerce, wiE not be held to have inhibited by impEcation the exercise by the States of their reserved police power, unless such state action would actuaEy frustrate or impair the intended operation of the federal legislation.
1. In Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 62, it was held that the Federal Food and Drugs Act, deahng, among other things, with shipment in interstate commerce; of fruit in filthy, decomposed, or putrid condition, did not prevent a State from.penaEzing the shipment of citrus fruits “which are immature or otherwise unfit for consumption.”
2. In Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 293, it was held that Congress did not, by the passage of the Federal Safety Appliance Acts, dealing with the equipment of locomotives, as well as of cars, and the Act to Regulate Commerce, preclude the States from legislating concerning locomotive headhghts, as to which Congress had not specifically acted.
3. In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 420, it was held that the Carmack Amendment (34 Stat. 584,595), regulating the carrier’s EabEity for loss of interstate shipments, did not prevent a State from providing for the allowance of a moderate attorney’s fee in a statute appKcable both in the case of interstate and intrastate shipments.
, 4. In Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 529, it was held that the passage by Congress of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, which, among other things, prohibited misbranding, did not prevent the States from regulating the sale and requiring to be affixed a statement of ingredients and minimum percentage of fat and proteins.-
5. In Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U. S. 612, 623, it was held that Congress, by granting, in the Act to Regulate Commerce, power to the Interstate Commerce Commission to compel equal switching service on cars destined to interstate commerce, did not, in the absence of the exercise by the Commission of its power, prohibit States from legislating on the subject.
6. In Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 257, it was held that Congress, in providing that a certificate of inspection issued by the National Bureau of Animal Industry should entitle cattle to be shipped into any State without further inspection, did not prevent a State.from penalizing the importation of cattle which had not been inspected either by the federal bureau or by designated state officials.
8. In Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 149, it was held that Congress, by making it an offence under the Animal Industry Act for anyone to send from State to State cattle known to.be affected with communicable disease, did not prevent the States from penalizing the importation of cattle without inspection by designated state officials.
9. In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 623, it was held that the Federal Animal Industry Act, making it a misdemeanor for any person or corporation to transport cattle known to be affected with contagious disease, did not prevent a State from imposing a civil liability for damages sustained by owners of domestic cattle by reason of the importation of such diseased cattle.
10. In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 482, it was held that Congress did not, by the passage of the Act to Regulate Commerce, prohibit the States from enacting laws requiring persons to undergo examination before being permitted to act as locomotive engineers.
11. In Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, it was held that Congress did not, by the passage of many laws regulating navigation, with a view to safety, and providing for liability in certain cases, prohibit the application to an accident in navigable waters of a State of a statute providing for liability for wrongful death.
The following cases, holding that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act supersedes the common or statutory laws of the States relating to the liability of railroads for negligent injuries to their employees while engaged in interstate commerce, are, of course, wholly consistent with the cases above referred to, the “field” of both federal and state laws there under consideration being identical: Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 55; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 576; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 66; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702, 704; St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363, 368; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 501; Wabash R. R. Co. v. Hayes, 234 U. S. 86, 89; Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co. v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454, 458; St.
The title of this act may be profitably compared with that of the bill (not enacted) prepared by the Employers’ Liability and Workmen’s Compensation Commission pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 41, approved June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 884, proposing a Federal Workmen’s Compensation Law, which reads: “A bill to provide an exclusive remedy
At the time the first Federal Employers’-Liability-Act was passed the so-called common law defenses remained in force, in large part, in most of the States, as to railroad employees.
A. The Fellow Servant Rule. (See Compilation of Statutes in “Liability of Employers,” Senate Hearings, 1906, pp. 183-288; and in Senate Document No. 207, 60th Congress, 1st sess.)
(1) It had been completely abolished as to railroad employees in only 5 States: Georgia (1856), Kansas (1874), North Carolina (1897), Colorado (1901), North Dakota (1903).
(2) It remained in full force, or substantially so, in 25 States or Territories: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New.Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.
(4) The passage of the first federal act immediately stimulated further state legislation. In 1907 the fellow-servant rule was abolished as to railroads in Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota; and largely in California, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
B. Contributory Negligence.. (See compilations cited, supra.)
(1) In all but 1 State there had been no statutory change of the rule that contributory negligence constituted a complete defense. Georgia (1895) had substituted the comparative negligence doctrine. In Kansas and Illinois early cases at common law seeming to apply this doctrine had been repudiated. The common law of Tennessee also contained some traces of the doctrine.
(2) During the year following the passage of the first federal act, which adopted the rule of comparative negligence, with mitigation of damages .proportionate to the degree of plaintiff’s negligence, several States introduced this modification: Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
C. Assumption of Bisk. (See the compilations cited, supra.)
The harshness of this rule had been mitigated by statute or other statutory action taken in only 14 States: Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia. In 1907 Iowa abolished the rule as to employees giving notice of a known defect.
See Report of Interstate Commerce Commission for the year 1906. Summary of Casualties, Table A, p. 161.
President’s Messages, December 2, 1902; December 6, 1904; December 5, 1905; January 31, 1908.
The following facts are significant as showing that employers’ liability was not deemed a factor in safety to employees or the public, or a matter in which uniformity was desirable, or as otherwise presenting a railroad problem:
(1) The Annual Reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission to Congress for the eleven years ending December, 1908, deal each year at large with accidents, casualties to employees, and the promotion of safety. These reports contain numerous recommendations for legislation concerning safety appliances, hours of labor, block signals, train control, inspection and accident reporting; but no recommendation or even mention of employers’ liability.
(2) The National Convention of Railroad Commissioners, an association comprising the commissioners of the several States, is formed for the purpose of discussing, and aiding in the solution of American railroad problems. Likewise, in its reports for eleven years ending October, 1908, no reference has been found, either in the annual President’s address, or in the report of the Committee on Legislation, or in the discussions, to the subject of employers’ liability; or any mention of the passage by Congress of the two Employers’ Liability Acts, or of the decision of this court on the first act.
The absence of such reference is particularly noteworthy in the legislative report for the year 1908, pp. 218-233, which is devoted to a consideration of harmonious or uniform legislation. • It contains a résumé of the legislation in Congress recommended and supported by the National Convention of Railroad Commissioners during a period of 19 years and attendances at congressional hearings on safety appliances, block signal, and hours of labor legislation.
Compare Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473; New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Carr, 238 U. S. 260; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177; Erie R. R. Co. v. Welsh, 242 U. S. 303; Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 243 U. S. 43.
The number of cases on the October 1915 term of this court was 1069. Of these 93 involved one or more questions arising under the Federal Employe^’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908. Of these 93 cases, 37 presented the question whether or not the employee was engaged in interstate commerce or intrastate commerce. In 52 of the cases the question was presented whether there was evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. In 24 of the cases Ihe question was also presented whether or not the employee had assumed the risk.
The experience of the organization [Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen] shows that more than 60 per cent, of all deaths and disabilities are caused by railroad accidents. W. S. Carter, Sen. Doc. 549, p. 137, 64th Cong. 1st sess.