Carey v. New York Central Railroad

I dissent on the ground that in my opinion the train movement in which the plaintiff’s intestate was killed was not shown to have been so closely related to interstate commerce as to be a part of it. (Shanks v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556.) The burden was on the plaintiff to establish this. (Osborne v. Gray, 241 U. S. 16.) Although the Schwartz grain was at all times moving in interstate commerce (Cott v. Erie R. R. Co., 231 N. Y. 67; Railroad Commission of Ohio v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101) the train operation in question was in no way connected with the movement of that particular…