Novak v. Union Petroleum Products Co.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1938
• Citation: 200 A. 738
• Parties: NOVAK v. UNION PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

200 A. 738

NOVAK

v. UNION PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. et al.

New Jersey Department of Labor—Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

May 24, 1938.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rose Novak against the Union Petroleum Products Company and others.

Petition dismissed.

Dominick R. Rinaldi, of Jersey City, for petitioner. Avidan & Avidan, of Newark, for Louis Berkowitz. Walter X. Trumbull, of Newark, for Union Petroleum Products Co.

WEGNER, Deputy Commissioner.

>

The claim petition filed herein by Rose Novak seeks compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act of New Jersey, R.S.1937, 34:15-1 et seq., for the dependents of Joseph John Novak, deceased, on account of the death of the said Joseph John Novak on August 29, 1937, alleged to have resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondents.

The within claim has been submitted to the Bureau upon a stipulation of facts for the purpose of determining the preliminary question as to whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Bureau has jurisdiction over the within claim. My examination of the submitted facts and the law pertaining thereto leads me to the conclusion that the Workmen's Compensation Bureau is deprived of jurisdiction herein for the reason that the claim herein is one of admiralty jurisdiction.

The facts stipulated were that the decedent Joseph John Novak was drowned on August 29, 1937, in the navigable waters of the Hudson River in the State of New York; that immediately prior to this drowning he was last seen upon a yacht owned by respondent, Louis Berkowitz, president of the Union Petroleum Products Company, and moored in the Hudson River, navigable waters. The most favorable inference permitted from the facts stipulated was that the decedent Joseph John Novak met with an accident while working on the aforesaid yacht, as a result of which accident he fell into the Hudson River and was drowned. It was further stipulated that the Bureau may consider on this determination only, the following facts as though properly proven by the petitioner, without the respondents however, admitting the truth thereof, namely, that the decedent was regularly employed by the Union Petroleum Products Company prior to the alleged accident, in its garage in Hoboken, New Jersey, and that on previous occasions the decedent had been working on the said yacht, receiving his compensation therefor by checks of the respondent, Union Petroleum Products Company.

I find that since the accident and drowning in the within case occurred in navigable waters, the claim is one of admiralty jurisdiction and the Workmen's Compensation Bureau is therefore deprived of jurisdiction.

The test of jurisdiction in injuries of this kind is the locality of the person or thing injured. 1 C.J. 1285, Section 119, Martin v. West, 222 U.S. 191, 32 S.Ct. 42, 56 L.Ed. 159, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 592. See, also, Baldwin v. Linde-Griffith Construction Co., Err. & App., 115 N.J.L. 608, 181 A. 35. The accident and death occurring in navigable waters, the claim is therefore within admiralty jurisdiction.

It is the settled law that the Workmen's Compensation Act of New Jersey can have no jurisdiction over a claim cognizable in admiralty. The United States Supreme Court in the recent case of The Linseed King, 285 U.S. 502, 52 S.Ct. 450, 453, 76 L.Ed. 903, had further...