Lahti v. Terry & Tench Co.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1925 |
| Citation | 240 N.Y. 292,148 N.E. 527 |
| Parties | LAHTI v. TERRY & TENCH CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Matti Lahti, employee, opposed by the Terry & Tench Company, Inc., employer, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, insurance carrier. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (211 App. Div. 825, 206 N. Y. S. 925), affirming an award of the State Industrial Board, the employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Order of Appellate Division and determination of State Industrial Board reversed, and claim dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Wm. Warren Dimmick, of New York City, for appellants.
Albert Ottinger, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.
Claimant, employed in the construction of a pier, was injured while standing on a floating raft in navigable waters. In such circumstances, the maritime law must fix his rights and remedies, for the locus of the accident was maritime, though the service was not. Grant-Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 42 S. Ct. 157, 66 L. Ed. 321, 25 A. L. R. 1008;Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171, 45 S. Ct. 39, 69 L. Ed. 228;Danielsen v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 235 N. Y. 439, 139 N. E. 567;Butler v. Robbins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 240 N. Y. 23, 147 N. E. 235.
A different question would be here if the Workmen's Compensation Act, as it stood at the time of the injury, had been elective rather than compulsory (Grant-Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, supra; Danielsen v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., supra), or if the employer and the insurance carrier, as well as the claimant, had chosen under a later amendment (Workmen's Compensation Act, § 113, Laws 1922, c. 615 [Consol. Laws, c. 67]) to waive their admiralty remedies. The act was ineffective, in so far as it was compulsory, to displace the law of the sea; and employer and carrier, refusing to take advantage of the optional element brought into it by amendment, insist upon their maritime rights.
We do not stop to inquire whether the raft is to be classified as a boat, for, however that question were to be answered, the territorial basis of jurisdiction would remain. Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., supra.
The order of the Appellate Division and the determination of the State Industrial Board should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrisey v. Westshore Marina Associates, 208--40618--I
...194, 70 L.Ed. 470 (1926); Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469, 42 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed. 321 (1922); Lahti v. Terry & Tench Co., 240 N.Y. 292, 148 N.E. 527 (1925), rev'd sub nom. State Industrial Board v. Terry & Tench Co., 273 U.S. 639, 47 S.Ct. 90, 71 L.Ed. 817 (1926)); 5 (4) ......
-
Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington
...829; State Industrial Board of N.Y. v. Terry & Tench Co., Inc., 273 U.S. 639, 47 S.Ct. 90, 71 L.Ed. 817, reported as Lahti v. Terry & Tench Co., 240 N.Y. 292, 148 N.E. 527; Alaska Packers' Ass'n. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 276 U.S. 467, 48 S.Ct. 346, 72 L.Ed. 656. And note the disse......
-
In re Famous Players Lasky Corporation
...Industrial Board of State of New York v. Terry & Tench Co., 273 U. S. 639, 47 S. Ct. 90, 71 L. Ed. 817, reversing Lahti v. Terry Trench Co., 240 N. Y. 292, 148 N. E. 527, the issue is identical with Braud, supra, except the employee stood on a float on the water to repair a pile driven in t......
-
Sunny Point Packing Co. v. Faigh
...Industrial Board of New York v. Terry & Tench Co. (1926) 273 U. S. 639, 47 S. Ct. 90, 71 L. Ed. 817, reversing Lahti v. Terry & Tench Co. (1925) 240 N. Y. 292, 148 N. E. 527, in which the New York court held state compensation proceedings invalid, presents facts somewhat analogous to those ......