Reinhardt v. Newport Flying Serv. Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1921
• Parties: REINHARDT v. NEWPORT FLYING SERVICE CORPORATION et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

232 N.Y. 115

133 N.E. 371

REINHARDT

v.NEWPORT FLYING SERVICE CORPORATION et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1921.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67) by Aksel Emil Reinhardt for compensation for injuries, opposed by the Newport Flying Service Corporation, employer, and Aetna Life Insurance Company, insurance carrier. Award of the State Industrial Commission for claimant affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (197 App. Div. 915,188 N. Y. Supp. 947), and the employer and insurance carrier appeal.

Order of the Appellate Division and award of the Industrial Commission reversed, and claim dismissed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

T. Carlyle Jones and James B. Henney, both of New York City, for appellants.

Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

CARDOZO, J.

Claimant was employed in the care and management of a hydroaeroplane which was moored in navigable waters at Gravesend Bay, Brooklyn. The plane traveled between Brooklyn, N. Y., and Miami, Fla. While moored in these navigable waters, it began to drag anchor and drift toward the beach, where it was in danger of being wrecked. Claimant waded into the water to turn the plane about, and was struck by the propeller. The question to be determined is whether he was injured by a vessel. If he was, the jurisdiction of the admiralty excludes the jurisdiction of the commission. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 Sup. Ct. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834, 11 A. L. R. 1145. If he was not, employment and injury suffice to justify an award. The latest of man's devices for locomotion has invaded the navigable waters, the most ancient of his highways. Riding at anchor is a new craft which would have mystified the Lord High Admiral in the days when he was competing for jurisdiction with Coke and the courts of common law. 1 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 321, 322, Mears, Admiralty Jurisdiction, 2 Anglo-American Legal Essays, 354.

We think the craft, though new, is subject, while afloat, to the tribunals of the sea. Vessels in navigable waters are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. Any structure used, or capable of being used, for transportation upon water, is a vessel. U. S. Compiled Statutes, tit. 1, c. 1, § 3; Chas. Barnes Co. v. One Dredgeboat (D. C.) 169 Fed. 895. All that remains is to ascertain the uses and capacities of the structure to be classified. The conclusion might be more dubious if the word ‘vessel’ had been interpreted grudgingly and narrowly. The fact is that it has been interpreted liberally and broadly. It includes a canal boat drawn by horses (The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 30, 24 Sup. Ct. 8, 48 L. Ed. 73); a bathhouse upon floats (The Public Bath [D. C.] No. 13, 61 Fed. 692); a raft (The Mary [D. C.] 123 Fed. 609); a scow (The Sunbeam, 195 Fed. 468, 115 C. C. A. 370;Geo. Leary Const. Co. v. Matson [C. C. A.] 272 Fed. 461); a dredge (Chas. Barnes Co. v. One Dredgeboat, supra; Saylor v. Taylor, 77 Fed. 476, 23 C. C. A. 343;Ellis v. U. S., 206 U. S. 246, 259, 27 Sup. Ct. 600, 51 L. Ed. 1047, 11 Ann. Cas. 589); a temporarily sunken drillboat (Eastern S. S. Corp. v. Great Lakes D. & D. Co., 256 Fed. 497,168 C. C. A. 13); anything upon the water where movement is predominant rather than fixity or permanence (Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625, 7 Sup. Ct. 336, 30 L. Ed. 501;Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co. [D. C.] 219 Fed. 763, 774; The Mac, 7 P. D. 126; The Mudlark, [1911] P. 116; The Whitton, [1896] P. 42, 57, affirmed [1897] A. C. 337). A hydroaeroplane, while in the air, is not subject to the admiralty (Crawford Bros., No. 2 [D. C.] 215 Fed. 269), or so at least we may assume, because it is not then in navigable waters, and navigability is the test of admiralty jurisdiction. A hydroaeroplane, while afloat upon waters capable of navigation, is subject to the admiralty, because location and function stamp it as a means of water transportation. Such a plane is, indeed, two things-a seaplane and an aeroplane. To the extent that it is the latter, it is not a vessel, for the medium through which it travels is the air. Crawford Bros., No. 2, supra. To the extent that it is the former, it is a vessel, for the medium through which it travels is the water. If a seaplane, incapable of flight, breaks its moorings and causes injury to man or ship, there will be a remedy against the offending res. If, moving upon the water, it becomes disabled, and is rescued on the high seas by a ship, it will be subject to a lien for salvage. We think the jurisdiction of the admiralty is not less where the structure found afloat is seaplane and aeroplane combined. It is true that the primary function is then movement in the air, and that the function of movement in the water is auxiliary and secondary. That is, indeed, a reason why the...