Lee v. Licking Valley Coal Digger Co.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1925
• Citation: 209 Ky. 780
• Parties: Lee, etc. v. Licking Valley Coal Digger Company.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 780

209 Ky. 780

Lee, etc. v. Licking Valley Coal Digger Company.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided June 19, 1925.

Admiralty — Workmen's Compensation Act, Though Elective, Held Impotent to Take from "Admiralty" and to Confer upon Board of Workmen's Compensation and State Courts Jurisdiction of "Maritime Cause" — "Maritime." — Workmen's compensation act, though elective, held impotent to take from "admiralty" and to confer upon board of workmen's compensation and state courts jurisdiction of "maritime cause," in view of Constitution United States, article 3, section 2, and laws enacted pursuant thereto; "maritime" pertaining to navigation or commercial intercourse upon the seas, Great Lakes and rivers, a "maritime cause" being one arising from a maritime contract, whether made at sea or on land, and "admiralty" being tribunal exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, or offenses, and extending to navigable rivers, whether tidal or not, in the United States.

Appeal from Kenton Circuit Court.

RICHARD G. WILLIAMS and JOHN D. CARROLL for appellant.

MYERS & HOWARD for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE SAMPSON.

Affirming.

Willis Lee, husband of appellant, Marie Lee, was drowned in the Ohio river, near the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, while in the line of duty as an employe of the Licking Valley Coal Digger Company, a corporation which, with all its employes, including the deceased, Lee, had accepted the terms of the workmen's compensation law of this state, and were operating under it. Lee was working on coal barges which were being unloaded at the time by a coal digger, a kind of steam shovel. In attempting to pass from one barge to another he, by accident, fell into the river and thus came to his death.

The digger was located on a boat or barge which operated only on water, and moved up, down and across the river at the pleasure of those in charge. Appellant, Marie Lee, the only dependant of the deceased, filed claim for compensation with the board of compensation of the state, and was awarded the maximum, $4,000.00, allowed by law in such cases for death. From this award the company appealed to the Kenton circuit court where it was held that the employment in which deceased, Lee, was engaged at the time of his death, was maritime and not cognizable by the board of workmen's compensation, and any cause of action arising out of his accidental death was cognizable exclusively in admiralty, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 3 of the Constitution of the United States, and laws enacted pursuant thereto. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The question presented is one of jurisdiction. Had the board of compensation jurisdiction to hear and determine and make an award in a case which admittedly before the passage of the act creating the board, was cognizable only in admiralty?

"Maritime," says Bouvier, "pertains to navigation or commercial intercourse upon the seas, Great Lakes and rivers. A maritime cause is one arising from a maritime contract, whether made at sea or on land."

Admiralty is a tribunal exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offenses, and extends to navigable rivers, whether tidal or not, in the United States.

The court of original admiralty jurisdiction in the United States is the United States district court. From this court causes could formerly be removed, in certain cases, to the circuit and ultimately to the supreme court.

Appellee insists that appellant's remedy is confined to the admiralty jurisdiction as fixed by the federal Constitution and the laws making same effective as enacted by the federal Congress. This jurisdictional question depends for its solution upon whether or not the Kentucky legislature, by its enactment of the workmen's compensation law, can divest the federal courts of jurisdiction of a subject which is and was well established, well defined and about which there was no question in the courts until the enactment of this law in Kentucky and other states of the Union.

Appellant argues that as our compensation law is elective and not compulsory, it is not in conflict with the admiralty laws, as only compulsory compensation laws have been held obnoxious to maritime laws by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this it appears to be in error as we shall later see.

In making its award the board of compensation, through its then chairman, Hon. Clyde Levy, delivered a written opinion, which because of its splendid diction and attractive reasoning, we would like to embrace in this opinion, but its length forbids, and we content ourselves with copying only the following paragraphs:

"Willis Lee was drowned in the Ohio river on April 5, 1922, while employed by defendant as a laborer. Both he and defendant had elected to accept and operate under the workmen's compensation act, as required by law, and the average weekly wage of deceased employe at the time was $18.00. He was survived by Mary Lee, widow, claimant herein, who filed application for adjustment of claim as total dependent of deceased employe. Deceased employe was moving an empty barge below digger and while going on to the barge from digger fell backward, striking his body on the end of the digger, and fell into the river between the digger and barge and was drowned.

"The digger was used to take coal, sand and gravel from the barge to a hopper on the bank. The digger operated only on the river and the only work required of deceased employe was such as to tie or untie a line, dig a hole for the spar and other similar work incident to his employment on the digger.

"An important question presented by the record is whether or not the Kentucky workmen's compensation board has jurisdiction, or whether the facts bring the case under admiralty jurisdiction.

"It is unnecessary to enter upon an extensive review of the admiralty jurisdiction. It is well settled that the...