Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow, 240 U.S. 51 (1916)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 240 U.S. 43, click here.

Kansas City Western Railway Company v. McAdow

No. 127

Submitted January 18, 1916
Decided January 31, 1916
240 U.S. 51

ERROR TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS,

STATE OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

If the declaration on which a case is tried brings it under the Employers’ Liability Act, the fact that the particular allegation showing that plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce appeared as an amendment does not raise a federal question.

The law governing the situation in an action in a state court under the Employers’ Liability Act is equally the law of the state whether derived from Congress or the state legislature, and must be noticed by the Court.

An electric railway from Leavenworth, Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas, with a traffic agreement with a street railway company operating in Kansas City, Missouri, held to be a railroad within the Act to Regulate Commerce. United States v. Bal. & Ohio S.W. R. Co., 226 U.S. 14. Omaha Street Ry. v. Int. Comm. Comm’n, 230 U.S. 324, distinguished.

The statute of Kansas is so similar to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act that the liability of the employer is not affected by the question of which governs the case, and it is under such circumstances unnecessary to determine which law applies.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict in an action for personal injuries and the application of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, are stated in the opinion.