Johnston v. Marshall, 10107.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 10107.,10107. |
| Parties | JOHNSTON v. MARSHALL, Deputy Compensation Com'r, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wm. P. Lord, T. W. Gillard, and B. Anderson, all of Portland, Or., for appellant.
Carl C. Donaugh, U. S. Atty., of Portland, Or., for appellee Marshall.
Wilbur, Beckett, Howell & Oppenheimer and Robert T. Mautz, all of Portland, Or., and John H. Black, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
The court below sustained a motion to dismiss proceedings brought by appellant to set aside an order denying appellant's claim made under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., and appellant then brought this appeal.
Appellant was employed by a master stevedore to operate a winch on a steamship. On February 9, 1940, he was returning to the ship from lunch and while walking across the dock stumbled and was injured. He filed a claim with the Deputy Commissioner who rejected it on the ground that the injury did not occur on the navigable waters of the United States. The court below sustained the Deputy Commissioner.
The word "injury" is defined in 33 U.S.C.A. § 902 as meaning "accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment". 33 U.S.C.A. § 903(a) provides in part:
"Compensation shall be payable under this chapter in respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock) and if recovery for the disability or death through workmen's compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law. * * *"
Appellant first contends that the injury was compensable under the act as one "arising out of and in the course of employment". Assuming, without deciding, that the injury arose out of appellant's employment, he would be entitled to compensation if, and only if, the injury occurred "upon the navigable waters of the United States", as specified in the statute above quoted. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 54, 55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598.
Appellant further contends that the act extends to injuries occurring upon the dock, if such injuries are connected with the employment. None of the authorities relied on by appellant support the contention. In fact, none of them even involves the act in question.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Stevedoring Corporation v. Oosting
...Cir., 340 F.2d 727; American Export Lines, Inc. v. Revel, 4 Cir., 266 F.2d 82; O'Loughlin v. Parker, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 1011; Johnston v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 13; Benedict on Admiralty § 29 (6 ed.); Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty § 6-46 (1957 ed.); Robinson on Admiralty § 11 (193......
-
Johnson v. Traynor
...1908, 208 U.S. 316, 28 S.Ct. 414, 52 L.Ed. 508; Smith & Son v. Taylor, 1928, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L. Ed. 520; Johnston v. Marshall, 9 Cir. 1942, 128 F.2d 13, cert. den. 1942, 317 U.S. 629, 63 S.Ct. 44, 87 L.Ed. 508; Kent v. Shell Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1961, 286 F.2d 746; Connor v. Unite......
- INSECT-O-LITE COMPANY v. Hagemeyer
-
Swanson v. Marra Bros.
...longshoremen who are injured while on navigable waters, but does not extend to injuries sustained by longshoremen on land, Johnston v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 13, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 629, 63 S.Ct. 44, 87 L.Ed. 508. Hence the existing law with respect to the latter situation was no......