PETERS ET AL.
v.
VEASEY, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VEASEY
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.
A longshoreman injured while working aboard a ship in New Orleans sought workers' compensation benefits under Louisiana law, but the Supreme Court held that maritime employment injuries fall within exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction and are not subject to state workers' compensation laws unless the federal statute providing such coverage was made applicable retroactively, which the Court determined Congress did not intend. The Court reversed the Louisiana Supreme Court's judgment, finding that a 1917 federal amendment allowing state workers' compensation remedies in admiralty cases should not be applied retroactively to injuries occurring before the amendment's passage.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. -
In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Louisiana (No. 20, Acts La., 1914), the Supreme Court of that State affirmed a judgment against plaintiffs in error and in favor of Veasey, who claimed to have suffered injuries, August 6,1915, while employed by Henry and Eugene Peters as a longshoreman on board the “Seria,” then lying at New Orleans. The steamer was being unloaded. While upon her and engaged in that work, Veasey accidentally fell through a hatchway. 142 Louisiana, 1012.
Á compensation policy in favor of Peters, issued by the ¿Etna Life Insurance Company,, was in force when the accident, occurred.
The work in which Yeasey was engaged is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract; the injuries which he received were likewise maritime; and the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection therewith were matters clearly within the admiralty jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State had no application when the accident, occurred. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59, 60, 61; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 217, 218.
Clause third, § 24, of the Judicial Code, confers upon the District Courts of the United States jurisdiction “of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” Clause third, § 256, provides that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States shall be exclusive in “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” By an act approved October 6,1917, c. 97, 40 Stat. 395, Congress directed that both of these clauses be amended by inserting after “saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it,” the words “and to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen’s compensation law. of any State.” The court below erroneously concluded that this act should be given retroactive effect and applied in the present controversy. There is nothing in the language employed, nor is there any circumstance' known to us, which indicates a purpose to make the act applicable when the cause of action arose before its passage; and we think it must not be so construed.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Clarke dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Wash. v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1924)…5; and a doctrine declared by Mr. Justice Story with the concurrence of Chief Justice Marshall, and approved by Chancellor Kent, was abandoned when found to be erroneous, although it had been acted on for twenty-six years. Compare Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121, a stevedore; also, Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Danielsen, 235 N. Y. 439; certiorari denied, 262 U. S. 756; Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Warren, 235 N. Y. 445; certiorari denied, 262 U. S. 756;Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Connelly, 235 N. Y.…
-
Red Cross Line v. Atl. Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1924)…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, 248 U. S. 308, the state statute…
-
State Indus. Comm'n of the State of N.Y. v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1922)…and it would be destructive of the ‘ uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the States with each other or with foreign states.’ ” See also Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149. In Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U. S. 308, it was held that when entering into maritime contracts the parties contemplate the system of maritime law, and its well known rules control their rights…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1917)
- Atl. Transp. Co. of W. Va. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1914)