State v. W.C. Dawson & Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1923
• Docket Number: 17564.
• Citation: 122 Wash. 572,212 P. 1059
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. W. C. DAWSON & CO.

212 P. 1059

122 Wash. 572

STATE v. W. C. DAWSON & CO.

No. 17564.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

February 16, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

On rehearing. Opinion in department (211 P. 724) sustained, and judgment affirmed.

Lindsay L. Thompson and John H. Dunbar, both of Olympia, for appellant.

Cosgrove & Terhune, of Seattle, for respondent.

Guie &amp Halverstadt and Geo. F. Vanderveer, all of Seattle, amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the department which first heard this case is reported in 211 P. 724. After the opinion was filed, a petition for rehearing was presented, in which our attention was called for the first time to the case of State Industrial Commission of New York v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U.S. 263, 42 S.Ct. 473, 66 L.Ed. 933. Upon the argument, when the case was heard en banc, it was suggested that the statement in the opinion, to the effect that the work of a stevedore is maritime in its nature and a matter within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, was too broad, because it did not seem to recognize the two classes of stevedores. It appears that there are stevedores whose work is upon the dock or wharf, and also those whose work is upon the boat. The latter are sometimes called 'water stevedores.' The question whether the stevedores who work upon the dock may be brought within the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1911, p. 345) of this state is not involved in this case. The question here has to do solely with those who work upon the water, and which work is maritime in its nature, and the rights and liabilities connected therewith are matters which are within the admiralty judisdiction of the United States. The department opinion must be understood as referring only to those stevedores who work upon the boat.

The case of State Industrial Commission v. Nordenholt Corporation, supra, is not out of harmony with the views expressed in the department opinion. In that case the question was whether a longshoreman working upon a dock was within the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state of New York, and it was there held that he was under such act. That case is distinguishable from the one now before us, because there the stevedore was working upon the dock, while here the attempt is to bring within the Workmen's Compensation Act of this state those who are working upon the water, and whose work is therefore...