East v. Oosting, Civ. A. No. 4798

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
Writing for the CourtJohn W. Winston, Norfolk, Va., for U. S. Lines Co. and Travelers Ins. Co
Citation245 F. Supp. 51
PartiesJohn W. EAST, Petitioner, v. Jerry C. OOSTING, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, Fifth Compensation District, Respondent, United States Lines Company and The Travelers Insurance Company, Intervenors. Albert AVERY, Petitioner, v. Jerry C. OOSTING, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, Fifth Compensation District, Respondent, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor.
Decision Date10 September 1965
Docket Number4976.,Civ. A. No. 4798

245 F. Supp. 51

John W. EAST, Petitioner,
v.
Jerry C. OOSTING, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, Fifth Compensation District, Respondent,
United States Lines Company and The Travelers Insurance Company, Intervenors.

Albert AVERY, Petitioner,
v.
Jerry C. OOSTING, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, Fifth Compensation District, Respondent,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor.

Civ. A. Nos. 4798, 4976.

United States District Court E. D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

September 10, 1965.


245 F. Supp. 52

Kelsey & Rabinowitz, Norfolk, Va., for both petitioners.

C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., W. T. Mason, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., and U. S. Dept. of Justice, Leavenworth Colby, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondent Deputy Commissioner.

John W. Winston, Norfolk, Va., for U. S. Lines Co. and Travelers Ins. Co.

William B. Eley, Norfolk, Va., for Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

WALTER E. HOFFMAN, Chief Judge.

In substantially identical actions each of petitioners seeks a trial de novo on the jurisdictional issue, and further requests the entry of an order setting aside the findings of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, which were to the effect that the injury in each case did not occur upon the navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

The two cases have not been consolidated for trial or hearing, but the governing principles in each case are essentially the same and are the subject of this joint memorandum for the convenience of the Court. However, separate orders should be entered and, if appeals are noted, separate notices of appeal should be filed.

In East, the petitioner was an employee of the United States Lines Company on June 17, 1963. The employer was engaged in maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States and, at the time in question, had a verbal agreement with Whitehall Terminal Corporation, a stevedoring concern, to discharge cargo from the S.S. AMERICAN PRESS which was moored on the north side of Pier No. 2, Army Base; the pier being owned by the Department of Commerce, Maritime Commission, but the north side being leased to Whitehall Terminal Corporation. The pier is 334 feet wide and projects out over the Elizabeth River at an approximate right angle from the land a distance of 1328 feet. The pier is supported by piles sunk into the river bed. There is a shed on the pier covering a distance of 1280 feet, the first 500 feet being two stories high. The width of the apron of the pier at the extreme offshore end is 40 feet, and on the north side is 36 feet. The depth of the water at mean low water off the end of the pier is from 30 to 35 feet and along the north side of the pier's apron is 30 feet. While not in the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, the parties have stipulated that there was water under the pier of sufficient depth to permit a small barge or a small launch or rowboat to go between the pilings. It is further

245 F. Supp. 53
agreed that no cargo boat could go under the pier. The pier is attached and connected to the land and, as such, is an extension of land. East was employed as a cargo checker and, at times, it became necessary for him to board vessels. On the day in question East was assigned to check cargo on the north side of Pier No. 2, adjacent to the No. 5 hatch of the AMERICAN PRESS, as the cargo was discharged from the hatch. While checking cargo under the shed, he was struck on the leg by a bale of wool which had fallen off a fork lift being operated by an employee of Whitehall. Thus he was on the surface of the pier when he sustained his injury. He was awarded compensation benefits under the Workmens' Compensation Act of Virginia, but the Deputy Commissioner rejected East's claim for benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act as the injury sustained did not occur upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock)

In Avery, the petitioner was an employee of Old Dominion Stevedoring Corporation in the capacity of longshoreman at the time of his injury on December 28, 1961. He was assigned, together with other members of the work gang, to an open type railroad car and was engaged in hooking up logs which, in turn, were being hoisted from the railroad car by means of the ship's gear and loaded onto the vessel which was afloat in the Elizabeth River. While a log was being lifted from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Nacirema Operating Co v. Johnson Traynor v. Johnson, Nos. 9
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1969
    ...United States' as required by the Act.2 The District Courts upheld the Deputy Commissioners' decisions, 243 F.Supp. 184 (D.C.Md.1965); 245 F.Supp. 51 (D.C.E.D.Va.1965). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed.3 398 F.2d 900 (1968). We granted certiorari, 393 U......
  • NALCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. Shea, Civ. A. No. 68-972.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • December 17, 1968
    ...(1966). The Ninth Circuit's decisions on this matter were followed in Dixon v. Oosting, 238 F.Supp. 25 (E.D.Va.,1965); East v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D. Va.,1965); and Puget Sound Bridge & Dry Dock Co. v. O'Leary, 260 F.Supp. 260 (W.D.Wash.,1966). A de novo trial in jurisdictional f......
  • United States v. California, No. 5
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1980
    ...Insurance Co. v. Shea, 382 F.2d 344 (CA5 1967); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Arrien, 344 F.2d 640 (CA2 1965); East v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Va.1965); Johnson v. Traynor, 243 F.Supp. 184 (Md.1965). It suggests this is at least an implicit congressional declaration that piers are l......
  • Green v. Pope & Talbott, Inc., No. 4809
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 6, 1971
    ...Md.1965) (consolidated), and the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Avery v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Va.1965). Two of the three cases ultimately decided by the Supreme Court originated in the judicial process before the undersigned judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Nacirema Operating Co v. Johnson Traynor v. Johnson, Nos. 9
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1969
    ...United States' as required by the Act.2 The District Courts upheld the Deputy Commissioners' decisions, 243 F.Supp. 184 (D.C.Md.1965); 245 F.Supp. 51 (D.C.E.D.Va.1965). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed.3 398 F.2d 900 (1968). We granted certiorari, 393 U......
  • NALCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. Shea, Civ. A. No. 68-972.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • December 17, 1968
    ...(1966). The Ninth Circuit's decisions on this matter were followed in Dixon v. Oosting, 238 F.Supp. 25 (E.D.Va.,1965); East v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D. Va.,1965); and Puget Sound Bridge & Dry Dock Co. v. O'Leary, 260 F.Supp. 260 (W.D.Wash.,1966). A de novo trial in jurisdictional f......
  • United States v. California, No. 5
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1980
    ...Insurance Co. v. Shea, 382 F.2d 344 (CA5 1967); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Arrien, 344 F.2d 640 (CA2 1965); East v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Va.1965); Johnson v. Traynor, 243 F.Supp. 184 (Md.1965). It suggests this is at least an implicit congressional declaration that piers are l......
  • Green v. Pope & Talbott, Inc., No. 4809
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 6, 1971
    ...Md.1965) (consolidated), and the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Avery v. Oosting, 245 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Va.1965). Two of the three cases ultimately decided by the Supreme Court originated in the judicial process before the undersigned judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT