Legal Opinion · Dissent

New York Central Railroad v. Lefkowitz

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 10, 1968Published

1Dissent

Breitel, J. (dissenting).

The issue is made eminently clear in the lucid opinion for the'majority. It is whether the statutory requirement for a separate engineer assistant in the engine crew, as distinguished from the train crew, is supported on any rational evidentiary basis as relevant to safety. Thus, the majority recognizes that “ if it be a hollow device to shelter locomotive firemen from the economic consequences of diesel engine technology and of no useful purpose in the operation of the equipment, the railroads ought not be compelled to conform to it.” Indeed, it is quite impossible…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. NorwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. HardinDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API