GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY
v.
KIEREJEWSKI, ADMINISTRATRIX OF KIEREJEWSKI

U.S. | 1923-04-09
No. 633
261 U.S. 479 Supreme Court of the United States (1923) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 67 L. Ed. 756 · 43 S. Ct. 418 · 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2582 · SCDB 1922-145
Cited by 80 cases

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.

Synopsis

When a worker employed by a dredging company was killed while performing maritime repairs on a vessel in navigable waters due to the company's negligent operation of a tug, the Supreme Court affirmed that federal admiralty jurisdiction applied because the tort occurred on navigable waters and directly involved rights and liabilities relating to navigation and commerce. The Court held that maritime law, rather than state law, governs tort claims arising from incidents on navigable waters that have a direct relation to maritime activities.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question propounded upon this direct writ of error is whether the District Court rightly held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the libel by which defendant in error sought to recover damages for the death of her husband. 280 Fed. 125.

Plaintiff in error, a corporation engaged in dredging, pile driving, etc,, maintains a yard at Buffalo, New York, and also keeps there scows and tugs. Leo Kierejewski, a master boiler maker, was employed by it to perform services as called upon. Acting under this employment, he began to make repairs upon a scow moored in the navigable waters of Buffalo River. He stood upon a scaffold resting upon a float alongside. One of the Company’s tugs came near, negligently agitated the water, swamped the float and precipitated him into the stream where he drowned.

While performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat, he came to his death upon navigable waters as the result of a tort there committed. The rules of the maritime law supplemented by the local death statute applied and fixed the rights and liabilities of the parties. Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233.

. “ The general doctrine that in contr'act matters admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction and in tort matters upon the locality, has been so frequently asserted by this court that it must now be treated as settled.” Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 476.

In the cause last cited neither Rohde’s general employment nor his activities had any direct relation to navigation or commerce — the matter was purely local — and we were of opinion that application of the state statute, as between the parties, would not work material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the general maritime law or interfere with its proper harmony or uniformity.

Here the Circumstances are very different. Not only was the tort committed and effective on navigable waters, but the rights and liabilities of the parties are matters which have direct relation to navigation and commerce. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255; State Industrial Commission of New York v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

  • United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Reed Constr. Corp., 149 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
    …5 Cir., 1953) 204 F. 2d 705; 1 Benedict on Admiralty, 6th Ed., 392, § 148; Norris Maritime Personal Injuries, 373, et seq., §§ 130, 131, or recovery may be had in an action in personam brought in the common law court. Great Lakes Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 43 S.Ct. 418, 67 L.Ed. 756; Atlantic Transport Co. v. State of Maryland to use of Szczesek, 234 U.S. 63, 34 S.Ct. 736, 68 L.Ed. 1213, Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U.S. 99, 23 L.Ed. 819; Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L.Ed. 369; State of Marylan…
  • Fcci Fund (Feisco) v. Cayce's Excavation, Inc., 726 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
    …ohde, 257 U.S. 469, 477, 42 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed. 321 (1922). There a worker helping build a new ship afloat on navigable waters was allowed to recover under Oregon’s workers’ compensation statute. But see Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 43 S.Ct. 418, 67 L.Ed. 756 (1923) (holding widow of worker killed on board helping repair a scow moored in navigable waters could not recover). Rohde was allowed to recover on the theory that shipbuilding — unlike ship repair — is maritime but loca…
  • Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1964)
    …eas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85; Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U. S. 372; The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199; cf. The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479; Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233; cf. The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398. 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§51-60 (1958 ed.). See Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U. S. 16, 20-21, and cases there cited. 36 Stat. 291, 45 U. S. C.…

Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw