*1 CO. RAILROAD REED PENNSYLVANIA Argued May 1, 1956. Decided June No. 621. Lord, III, S. filed a
Joseph argued the cause and brief petitioner. respondent. Theodore argued Yoorhees cause for W. Philip With him on the brief were Price and Gordon Gerber. opinion of the delivered the Minton
Mr. Justice *2 Court. here have for decision is whether question we respondent railroad, of
petitioner, Employers’ Liability of the Federal coverage within the amended, Act. 53 Stat. Stat. § employed entirely respond- in 51. Petitioner is § U. S. C. in building Philadelphia. Her duties consist ent’s office tracings engines, of all of filing original respondent’s structures, and other from cars, parts, tracks, bridges, made. There are blueprints of those items are in in 325,000 tracings peti- some on file the office which an order blueprints tioner works. Whenever for comes anywhere in respondent’s system, petitioner’s from in it is by securing responsibility to fill the order the correct trac- ings blueprint from the files. These she takes to the blueprints building. maker in the same office After the made, duty are petitiоner’s it is to return the original tracings appropriate file. About 67% made are Penn- blueprints points sent outside sylvania. The files which attends are the sole depository original tracings of the of the structural details respondent’s of all rolling stock, trackage, and other equipment installations, represent and as such a fund operating documents without which maintenance system impossible. would injured
Petitioner was pane when cracked window her office blew in brought per- her. She suit for injury sonal under the Act. On respondent’s dismiss, motion to the District Court held that petitioner the coverage was within of 1 of the § Act and, being diversity there no of citizenship between parties, complaint jurisdic- dismissed for lack of tion. The Appeals Court of affirmed. 227 2dF. importance of the because granted certiorari
We administration of the Act. 350 in the question presented U. S.965. every railroad, enacted, provided originally
As commerce, in interstate engaging” “while person suffering damages any “shаll be liable by such employed while he is such injury injury resulting or death ... such commerce any of part negligence or in from the whole or carrier, or agents, officers, negli- to its any insufficiency, due reason defect machinery, cars, engines, appliances, in its gence, *3 other works, boats, wharves, or track, roadbed, equiрment.” Stat. 65. 1939,
A to the in and paragraph was added section the amend- specific problems it is clear that two remedy at of this sought ment least to were results injury, holdings that, at the moment of his Court’s as had in employee engaged as the railroad to be well in coverage order to come interstate commercе within that in construction of employees engaged and Rep. facilities were not covered. S. No. 76th new Gileo, Southern Cong., 2-3; 1st Sess. Co. decided Pacific ante, today, p. 493. The amendment took the form of an . . in expanded “person employed” definition of . interstate commerce. The amendment reads: any part
“Any employee
carrier,
whose
employee
as
duties
such
shall be the furtherance of
foreign commerce;
any way
interstate or
or
in
shall,
directly
closely
substantially,
or
affect such com-
shall,
merce
set forth
for
purposes
above
Act,
being
this
employed by
be considered
in
such commerce and shall be considered as
entitled to
this Act . .
.” 53
the benefits of
.
Stat.
not
Congress
is made that
could
constitu-
argument
No
Act.
tionally
petitioner
include
coverage
within
narrowly
argument
The
is that the amendment was
drawn
it to
remedy specific
evils and that to construe
include
in
petitioner
the Act of virtu-
would amount to inclusion
all
ally
respondent
railroad
result which
—a
argument
assumes is unintended and undesirable.
in
is
takes several forms.
it
said that “commerce”
First,
only
the Act means
is
transportation
Delaware,
transportation.
in
employed
not
See Shanks v.
Co.,
L.
& W. R.
559-560.
the inter-
U. S.
But
is
inter-
respondent
engaged
state commerce which
is
If
transportation.
“any part”
petitionеr’s
state
duties
substantially
is in
of or
“furtherance”
affects interstate
commerce,
substantially
also
of or
“furtherance”
transportation.
coverage
affects interstate
The. test for
under
amendment
is not whether the
he
engaged
transportation, but rather whether what
in any way
substantially
does
furthers or
affects trans-
portation. Nor
we
presented
can
resolve the issue
here
terms of whether
as a
class
are excluded from the benefits of
the statute. The
designed
amendment was
obliterate fine
distinctions
coverage
employees who,
as to
between
the purpose
*4
of this remedial
should
There
legislation,
be treated alike.
is no
meaningful distinction,
terms of whether
the
are
or
employee’s
petitioner
duties
not, between
for
an
and,
illustration,
timekeeper,
assistant chief
Straub
Co.,
Reading
v.
F.
or messenger boy
220
2d
a
carrying
waybills
grain
separate
and
orders between
local offices
Co.,
v.
freight stations,
and
Bowers Wabash R.
246 S. W.
inspector
2d
or a lumbеr
hurt
inspecting
while
ties
Co.,
at a
company,
lumber
Ericksen v. Southern Pacific
39
2d
P.
Cal.
2d 642—all of whom have been
by
held covered
the 1939 amendment.
See also Lillie
Act interpreted, been so industry. The Act has not railroad protection affords specifically 1939 amendment and the bring him within “any employee” whose duties 1§of language no in the There is basis amendment. any the to exclude liability of railroad confining The benefits of class. of railroad class in their have cinders Act are not limited to those who the Sec- or callouses on their hands. faces, on their hair, soot from interpreted to exclude tion cannot be of the function benefits without further consideration its its commerce. performs impact and on interstate she employed by present petitioner think that the is We respondent meaning the in interstate commerce within Although amendment amend- may specific bеen desire to prompted ment have rules limiting coverage, obviate certain court-made beyond objective. far It language goes used that narrow purpose expand substantially evinces a as well coverage in deciding questions as to avoid narrow distinctions coverage. amendment, “duties” of the Under it сommerce, that must further or affect if enough “any part” the requisite those duties has effect. The statute us purpose commands to examine the employee’s and effect function the railroad’s operation, interstate without limitation to nonclerical employees or employee’s determination оn the basis of the importance as an organization. individual in the railroad’s respondent
Here railroad has chosen to its arrange op- repairs erations so that anywhere construction within system require its blueprints go through must Philadelphia office. No such work can be done without 325,000 recourse to the files of original trаcings peti- tioner’s custody. misplacing Loss of those tracings promptly confusion, could cause delay, or worse operation day-to-day respondent’s If em- lines. all *5 ployees perform petitioner’s duties were removed from service, respondent operations could not conduct its system. rec- change organizational without To ognize exag- this is to attribute to neither an gerated nor respondent’s an attenuated to relationship transportation system. filing tracings The and the dis- patch blueprints comprise taken from them a direct respondent’s rolling link in the lines maintenance and Together stock. the makers of blueрrints, petitioner with constitutes the men throughout respond- means system they ent’s obtain the information must have maintain the railroad’s trains, equipment, track, structures. very purpose petitioner’s job physi- is system. Proper
cal maintenance anof interstate railroad performance of her duties makes an contribution obviоus system. the maintenance hold that We petitioner, by duties, furthering of her performance transportation respondent the interstate which the comprehensive engaged. “The word ‘furtherance’ is a admittedly it is periphery may vague, term. Its be but Thomson, F. 2d large both and elastic.” Shelton v. duties Petitioner’s here come within cоnfines concept. of that directly “in any way
Similarly, those duties which closely substantially affect” interstate commerce industry out necessarily the railroad must marked case-by-case This through process adjudication. definition and “furtherance” definition of employ- ment in interstate commerce in the 1939 amendment are disjunctive. they may set forth In some situations that, already Here hold for the reasons overlap. we given, petitioner’s duties has a' close and performance in- operation respondent’s substantial effect Corp., Cf. terstate activities. Overstreet North Shore S. 125. 318 U.
508 coverage brought her within
Petitioner’s duties had therefore District Court 1 as and the amended, Employers’ the Federal under jurisdiction over this suit is reversed and the below Liability judgment Act. to the District Court remanded cause proceedings.
Reversed. stated for the reasons dissents Mr. Justice Burton Appeals. Court of opinion below the whom Reed Justice Frankfurter, Justice Mr. Mr. dissenting. join, and Mr. Justice Harlan of a empowered scope to define the are not Dissenters may induce dissent. way they but the read it decision, opin- written. The Court has here So it with what the the Amendment ion not state in terms that does 11, 1939, Employers’ to the Federal August Stat. has dras- Liability April 22, 1908, Stat. Act tically scope the limited of that Act to those changed are, more or employeеs of an interstate carrier opera- directly transportation concerned less, with of such inter- to make it reach all the tions as Congress in the exercise of its consti- state whom say I may cover. power regulate tutional to commerce explicitly this, Court not hold but it does hold does a that is covered the terms of the a is in “furtherance” of “part” Act because of her duties interstate commerce. The Court reads the Amendment merely lexicographical to the Act in a of 1908 anything that furthers or sense. “Furtherance” means certainly helps forward; charged was with helped tasks that furthered or the business forward Pennsylvania Comрany, engaged Railroad a carrier commerce; ergo, petitioner, having interstate been injured “employed by while carrier in com- such right of action under the Amendment merce,” has Liability Act. explicit Court to at this, Were the be would not open door, inevitably does, least as this decision juristic requirement to new It is litigаtion. not be carried their It is logical consequences. decisions equally capricious true that distinctions should *7 they made. Yet are invited when the rationale of a deci- if left, cloudy, certainly my- sion not unlimited. For I self, do not see how the clerical employee here “furthers” of Pennsylvania any
the business the more thаn do all the employees other clerical of Pennsylvania, the the thousands thousands of clerical the employees on throughout various railroads country, though the even may there in salary impor- be differences and hierarchical among employees. tance Accordingly, clerical obviously and other non-transportation of bring railroads will suits under the Employers’ Liability Federal Act recov- when ery will, by thereunder chance, appear law of to law- yers advising them to more advantageous be than awards compensation obtainable under state workmen’s acts. Indeed, if employees may some seek to themselves, avail another, one reason or of a compensa- state workmen’s act, may tion a resist, under the doctrine of New York Winfield, Central R. Co. v. 147, by 244 U. S. urging remedy the exclusiveness of a under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Conversely, brought if suit is that Act, under carriers will doubtless resist, they as have past, ground particular in the on the that “furthering” sufficiently is not its business constitute “furtherance” intended in this Court silly It is not a in prophecy case. exercise to foretell that a if just mass, mess, indeed not a of cases came before this the 1939 prior Amendment, Court when the Court gave scope (see a much too constricted to the Act cases of Landis, The Business in Frаnkfurter and
collected of sterile 207-208), new series Court, pp. Supreme by this decision. be will stimulated litigation reading with the Court part company I assumption the construction in its English but Liability Act Federal Amendment to the reading The Act English. matter of merely consistently 1939, is the last a series August 11, an organism, projected it is such, statutes. As developing merely a collec- past. out of its It is not into the future dictionary. annotation out of the tion of for abstract words judicial must mindful of process construction be history of the which infused legislation, purpose of the of the difficulties were encountered effectuat- it, the aims of most in reliev- ing purpose, this those active be аll, these difficulties. Above we should mindful ing body enactments the central concern of that con- throughout stitute the Act all the It would redun- legislation. vicissitudes *8 to of Judge dant detail these considerations view Good- 227 F. A opinion rich’s below. 2d 810. few additional pertinent. observations are course, sought
Of
the Act of 1939
to remove hindrances
that had
in subjecting
revealed themselves
carriers to
liability
injuries
negligence.
due to
But the preoccu-
pation of the whole course of this legislation was with
protection
peculiarly exposed
injuries
to those who were
to
e.,
of the
occupation,
because
nature of their
i.
the haz-
very
ardous
of
A
railroading.
important
business
obstacle
recovery
to
was the doctrine of
assumption
of risk
part
general
of the
law negligence
of
made
was
right. Congress
the basis
the federal
assump-
abolished
tion of risk as
defense.
Tiller
See
v. Atlantic Coast
Co.,
Line
great difficulty
R.
I agree in finding with the Court that the “1939 amend- ment was designed to obliterate fine but distinctions”; they were only made courts relation worked the context of the hazardous business of transportation. amendatory was ad- legislation dressed to judicial affecting transporta- distinctions these tion no practical workers that bore relation to the essential conditions employment; of their these distinctions never totally touched others in a category employ- different ment because the Federal Act never remotely applied to them. In to obliterate such order necessary “fine distinctions,” jump it is not over wipe moon and out the basic distinction between those may whose duties to transportation, are tied whatever precise injury, have been their at work the moment exposed by way perma- those who are nent to no occupation greater potential or differеnt hazards than are the thousands thousands of like workers in offices other than those of railroads whom Con- gress has left to remedies under state law. It was on *9 presupposition of this cardinal distinction between trans- portation non-transportation of railroads the Federal amended Act was in 1939. To apply make it to clerical workers “fur- who ther,” dictionary term, sense the interstate justi- commerce business railroads would have as much no fication, more, Congress pass but as it would have Liability Employers’ Act for all enterprises large the conduct of their interstate history commerce. The whole course of of the Federal Liability Act regard as well due for the text context, the Amendment of in its entire calls for affirmance of the decision below.