T. SMITH & SON, INC.
v.
TAYLOR

U.S. | 1928-02-20
No. 186
276 U.S. 179 Supreme Court of the United States (1928) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 72 L. Ed. 520 · 48 S. Ct. 228 · SCDB 1927-056 · 1928 U.S. LEXIS 279
Cited by 184 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

A longshoreman employed by a stevedoring corporation was struck by cargo on a wharf and fell into the Mississippi River, where he died; his widow sought workers' compensation under Louisiana law. The Supreme Court affirmed that Louisiana's workers' compensation law applied because the cause of action arose from the blow struck on land (the wharf), not from the death in the river, and therefore the case was not exclusively within admiralty jurisdiction despite the maritime employment context.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Butler

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.

March 12, 1925, plaintiff in error, a stevedoring corporation, was unloading a vessel lying in the Mississippi at a dock in New Orleans. George Taylor was in its employ as a longshoreman and came to his death while engaged in that work. Defendant in error is his widow and brought this suit in the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish under the Louisiana Workmen’s-Compensation Law* to recover compensation for herself and children. The district court gave judgment for them; the Court of Appeal affirmed; and its presiding judge, after the state Supreme Court had denied a writ of certiorari, allowed the writ of error that brings the case here.

Plaintiff in error maintained below and here insists that this is a case exclusively within the admiralty and mari time jurisdiction, ,and that, while the state Compensation Law is broad enough to apply to longshoremen unloading vessels, its application in this case violates § 2 of Art. 3 of the Constitution, which extends the judicial power of the United States “ to all eases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ” and .also that clause of § 8 of Art. 1 which authorizes Congress to make laws for carrying into effect the powers granted by the Constitution.

At the time of the accident, cargo was being hoisted out of the hold to deck skids and thence swung to trucks operated upon a stage that rested solely upon the wharf and projected a few feet over the water to or near the side of the vessel. The petition of defendant in error alleged, and she introduced evidence to show, that deceased was standing on the stage when a sling, loaded with five sacks of soda weighing 200 pounds each, was being lowered over the side by means of a winch on the vessel; that the sling was swinging back and forth and, while deceased was trying to catch and steady it, the sling struck him and knocked him off the stage into the water where sometime later he was found dead. At the trial plaintiff in error maintained that deceased was not struck but accidentally fell into the river. The issues were decided in favor of defendant in error and the évidence is amply sufficient to sustain the finding.

Deceased was engaged in maritime work under a maritime contract. If the cause of action arose upon the river, the rights of the parties are controlled by maritime law, the case is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the application of the Louisiana Compensation Law violated § 2 of Art.

3. But, if the cause of action arose upon the land, the state law' is applicable. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 33; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149; Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S.

219. Plain tiff in error concedes that the stage and wharf on which deceased was working are to be deemed an extension of the land (Cleveland Terminal R. R. v. Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316, 321; Industrial Comm. v. Nordenholt Co., 259 U. S. 263, 275) and that the state law would apply if he had been injured or killed by falling on the landing-place. It argues that as no claim was made for injuries sustained while deceased was on land ,and as the suit was solely for death that occurred in the river, the case is exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction. But this is a partial view that cannot be sustained. The blow by the sling was what gave rise to the cause of action. It was given and took effect while deceased was upon the land. It was the sole, immediate and proximate cause of his death. The G.

R. Booth, 171 U. S. 450, 460. The substance and consummation of the occurrence which gave rise to the cause of action took place on land. The Plymouth, supra. This case cannot be distinguished from Johnson v. Chicago. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 397 or Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 191, 196, The contention of plaintiff in error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Act 20 of 1914 as amended by Act 243 of 1916, Act 38 of 1918, Acts 234, 244 and 247 of 1920, Act 43 of 1922 and Acts 21 and 216 of 1924.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (50 total)

  • Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1946)
    …ing in this case the vessel and the furnishers of the defective shackle. Where the injury occurs on land they are free to pursue the remedy afforded by local law. State Industrial Commission v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U. S. 263; Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U. S. 179; Swanson v. Marra Brothers, ante, p. 1. There would seem to be no occasion for us to be more generous than Congress has been by presenting to them paid-up accident insurance policies at the expense of a vessel by which they have not been employed,…
  • Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City OF Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1972)
    …. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 24 n. 88 (1957). [*255] But it is the perverse and casuistic borderline situations that have demonstrated some of the problems with the locality test of maritime tort jurisdiction. In Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U. S. 179 (1928), for instance, a longshoreman unloading a vessel was standing on the pier when he was struck by a cargo-laden sling from the ship and knocked into the water where he was later found dead. This Court held that there was no admiralty jurisdicti…
    1 / 2
  • Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1969)
    …ould have been liable if death had not ensued.” Since this topic received scant attention in argument in this Court, additional briefs were requested. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20 (1866); The Troy, 208 U. S. 321 (1908); T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Taylor, 276 U. S. 179 (1928); Hastings v. Mann, 340 F. 2d 910 (C. A. 4th Cir.), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 963 (1965). The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361 (1904); The Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 166 (1916); Doullut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 U. S. 33 (1925). “The admiralty a…

Previewing 3 of 50 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