Smith Son v. Taylor, 186
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BUTLER |
| Citation | 276 U.S. 179,1928 A.M.C. 447,48 S.Ct. 228,72 L.Ed. 520 |
| Parties | T. SMITH & SON, Inc., v. TAYLOR |
| Docket Number | No. 186,186 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1928 |
v.
TAYLOR.
Page 180
Mr. Eugie V. Parham, of New Orleans, La., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
March 12, 1925, plaintiff in error, a stevedoring corporation, was unloading a vessel lying in the Mississippi at a dock in New Orleans. George Taylor was in its employ as a longshoreman and came to his death while engaged in that work. Defendant in error is his widow and brought this suit in the civil district court of Orleans Parish under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law1 to recover compensation for herself and children. The district court gave judgment for them; the Court of Appeal affirmed; and its presiding judge, after the state Supreme Court had denied a writ of certiorari, allowed the writ of error that brings the case here.
Plaintiff in error maintained below and here insists that this is a case exclusively within the admiralty and mari-
Page 181
time jurisdiction, and that, while the state Compensation Law is broad enough to apply to longshoremen unloading vessels, its application in this case violates section 2 of article 3 of the Constitution, which extends the judicial power of the United States 'to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction,' and also that clause of section 8 of article 1, which authorizes Congress to make laws for carrying into effect the powers granted by the Constitution.
At the time of the accident, cargo was being hoisted out of the hold to deck skids and thence swung to trucks operated upon a stage that rested solely upon the wharf and projected a few feet over the water to or near the side of the vessel. The petition of defendant in error alleged, and she introduced evidence to show, that deceased was standing on the stage when a sling, loaded with five sacks of soda, weighing 200 pounds each, was being lowered over the side by means of a winch on the vessel; that the sling was swinging back and forth, and, while deceased was trying to catch and steady it, the sling struck him and knocked him off the stage into the water, where some time later he was found dead. At the trial plaintiff in error maintained that deceased was not struck, but accidentally fell into the river. The issues were decided in favor of defendant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co, 33030
...laws of admiralty would [182 Miss. 206] be materially interfered with by the application of the state law. T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244......
-
Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., Nos. 86-3049
...he had theretofore earned. That would impair the obligation of the implied contract under which he became entitled to the commissions. 276 U.S. at 179, 48 S.Ct. at 268. Accordingly, the holding of Mississippi ex rel. Robertson is that the contract clause protects a unilateral contract once ......
-
Torres v. City of New York
...were not entitled to compensation under Federal maritime law (see, e.g., Victory Carriers v. Law, supra; T. Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520; State Indus. Comm. of State of N.Y. v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263, 42 S.Ct. 473, 66 L.Ed. This general rule was mo......
-
In re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation, M. D. L. No. 39.
...no information to this Court that the initial impact or the injuries leading to death occurred in the river. Cf. Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179 (1928), discussed in Executive Jet, supra at 255, 93 S. Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 15 If substantive admiralty law, rather than the substantive law o......
-
Frazie v. Orleans Dredging Co, 33030
...laws of admiralty would [182 Miss. 206] be materially interfered with by the application of the state law. T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244......
-
Adamson v. Port of Bellingham, 16-35314
...by a fall from "a stage that rested solely upon the wharf and projected a few feet over the water to or near the side of the vessel." 276 U.S. 179, 181, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520 (1928). The plaintiff there conceded that both the stage and the wharf were extensions of land. Id. at 181–82, ......
-
Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Div. of Litton Systems, Inc., 82-4361
...party's activity and the activity causing the injury, the tort was not maritime if it took effect on land. 14 Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520 (1928). See also, e.g., Duluth & Superior Bridge Co. v. The Troy, 208 U.S. 321, 28 S.Ct. 416, 52 L.Ed. 512 (1908). 15......
-
Seas Shipping Co v. Sieracki, 365
...Commission of State of New York v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263, 42 S.Ct. 473, 66 L.Ed. 933, 25 A.L.R. 1013; Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179, 48 S.Ct. 228, 72 L.Ed. 520; Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., No. 405, 328 U.S. 1, 66 S.Ct. 869. There would seem to be no occasion for us to be......