CLYDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY
v.
WALKER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New York's Workmen's Compensation Commission awarded benefits to a longshoreman injured while unloading cargo from a steamship owned by a Maine corporation in navigable waters of the Hudson River. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that New York lacked constitutional authority to apply its workers' compensation law to maritime employment activities occurring on navigable waters, as the state legislature exceeded its power in extending the statute to such maritime conditions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Purporting to proceed under the Workmen’s Compensation Law of New York (c. 67, Consolidated Laws), the State Commission, on September 3, 1914, made an award to defendant in error, Walker. It found:
“1. William Alfred Walker, a claimant, is a longshoreman, residing at 151 West 133rd Street, New York City. Prior to July 1,1914, he was employed in the City of New York by the Clyde Steamship Company for longshore work. He was injured on July 1,1914,'while in the employ of the Clyde Steamship Company as a longshoreman.
“2. The Clyde Steamship Company is a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of Maine, where it has its principal office. It also has an office at Pier 36 North River. “3. During the discharge of the Cherokee and at the time of the accident, the claimant was on board the steamship Cherokee, owned and operated by the Clyde Steamship Company. During the year prior to the accident, Walker -had been employed from time to time by the Clyde Steamship Company and could have been assigned to work upon the pier, ffhe Cherokee was, at the time of the accident, moored to and alongside Pier 37, North River, New York City, lying in navigable waters of the Hudson River. Said pier is leased by Clyde Steamship Company from the City of New York.
“4: While claimant was hooking the rope of a derrick into a load of lumber in the between decks of said vessel for the purpose of unloading it from that vessel, his hand was jammed against the lumber, resulting in laceration of the second finger of the left hand. Claimant was disabled by reason of the injury from July 1,1914, to July 22, 1914, returning to work upon the latter date.
“5. The business of the Clyde Steamship Company in this state consists solely of carrying passengers and merchandise to New York from other states and carrying passengers and merchandise from New York to other states. All cargo on board the Cherokee, including the lumber aforesaid, had been taken on board in the State of North Carolina and carried by water to New York and was there unloaded from the steamship Cherokee. The claimant was engaged solely in handling said lumber. “6. The injury was an accidental injury and arose Out of and in the course of thé employment of claimant by the Clyde Steamship Company. The injury did not result solely from the intoxication of the injured employee while on duty, and was. not occasioned by the wilful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another. “7. The average weekly wage of claimant was $17.30.”
Without opinion the Appellate Division affirmed the award, and this action was approved by the Court of Appeals. 215 N. Y. 529.
In Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, just decided, ante, 205, we considered and disposed of the fundamental question here involved. The legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to extend the statute to conditions like those which the record discloses.
The judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in the former case.
Reversed.
Dissenting: Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Pitney, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Clarke.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Red Cross Line v. Atl. Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1924)…lly incurred. It does not attempt either to modify the substantive maritime law or to deal with the remedy in courts of admiralty. The Workmen's Compensation Laws involved in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Clyde S. S. Co. v. Walker, 244 U. S. 255; Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121; and Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, were declared invalid, because their provisions were held to modify or displace essential features of the substantive maritime law. In Union Fish Co. v. Erickson,…1 / 2
-
State Indus. Comm'n of the State of N.Y. v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1922)…pensation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed its action, holding' that as Doey was performing a maritime contract the Commission had no jurisdiction, under the doctrine of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, and Clyde S. S. Co. v. Walker, 244 U. S. 255. It said (224 N. Y. 35, 36): “Two questions are presented: (a) Was Doey, at the time of his death, engaged in the performance of a maritime contract? . . , [*271] “ If the first question be answered in the affirmative, then it necessarily follows f…
-
London Guar. & Accident Co., Ltd. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n of Cal., 279 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1929)…t, and hence was not among the common law remedies saved to suitors under § 256, and therefore such a remedy was contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The same principle was [*118] followed in Clyde Steamship Company v. Walker, 244 U. S. 255. In Knickerbocker Ice Company v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, it was held that an addition to the saving clause of § 256, by which rights and remedies under the workmen’s compensation law of any State were given to claimants thereunder, was unconstituti…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence