Anderson v. Johnson Lighterage Co.(In re Appeal of State Indus. Comm'n)

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: McLAUGHLIN
• Citation: Anderson v. Johnson Lighterage Co.(In re Appeal of State Indus. Comm'n), 224 N.Y. 539, 120 N.E. 55 (N.Y. 1918)
• Decision Date: 04 June 1918
• Parties: ANDERSON v. JOHNSON LIGHTERAGE CO. et al. Appeal of STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

224 N.Y. 539

120 N.E. 55

ANDERSON

v. JOHNSON LIGHTERAGE CO. et al.Appeal of STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 4, 1918.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Claim under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67), by Louis Anderson against the Johnson Lighterage Company, employer, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, insurance carrier. From an order of the Appellate Division (182 App. Div. 152,169 N. Y. Supp. 645) reversing a determination of the State Industrial Commission and dismissing the claim, the State Industrial Commission appeals. Affirmed.

Cuddeback, Hogan, and Cardozo, JJ., dissenting.

Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Bertrand L. Pettigrew, of New York City, for respondents.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The claimant, at the time he was injured, was a longshoreman in the employ of the Johnson Lighterage Company, which had a contract to load a vessel in navigable waters. While thus engaged he sustained an injury by slipping on a pier from which the cargo was being taken. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the Industrial Commission allowed the same. Its award was reversed by the Appellate Division, the claim dismissed, and the commission appeals to this court

In my opinion, for the reasons stated by me in Matter of Doey v. Howland Co., Inc., 120 N. E. 53, decided herewith, Anderson, at the time he was injured, was engaged in performing a maritime contract. The Industrial Commission therefore had no jurisdiction to make the award; it was properly vacated by the Appellate Division, and the claim dismissed.

The order of the Appellate Division therefore should be affirmed, with costs...