« AnteriorContinuar »
tween the New York Workmen's Compensation Act and the acts of Congress for limiting the liability of shipowners (Rev.Stats., 884283–5; Act of June 26, 1884, c. 121, $ 18, 23 Stat. 53, 57). So long as the aggregate liabilities of the owner, including that under the New York law, do not amount to as much as the interest of the owner in the vessel and freight pending, the act of Congress does not come into play. Where it does apply, it reduces all liabilities proportionally, under whatever law arising; the liability under the New York law along with the others. Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 552, 558; The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 406; Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96, 104, 105.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS and MR. JUSTICE CLARKE concur in the dissent, both upon the grounds stated by MR. JUSTICE HOLMES and upon those stated by MR. JUSTICE PITNEY
CLYDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. WALKER.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
No. 281. Argued February 28, 1916; restored to docket for reargument
November 13, 1916; reargued January 31, February 1, 1917.-Decided May 21, 1917.
Upon the authority of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, ante, 205,
Held, that the New York Workmen's Compensation Act is unconstitutional as applied to the case of a longshoreman employed by a steamship company engaged in interstate transportation by sea, who was injured while on board a vessel unloading her at her wharf
in navigable waters in New York. 215 N. Y. 529, reversed.
Opinion of the Court.
244 U. S.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Norman B. Beecher, with whom Mr. Ray Rood Allen was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. E. Clarence Aiken, with whom Mr. Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Mr. Harold J. Hinman were on the brief, for defendant in
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
Purporting to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Law of New York (c. 67, Consolidated Laws), the State Commission, on September 3, 1914, made an award to defendant in error, Walker.
“1. William Alfred Walker, a claimant, is a longshore man, residing at 151 West 133rd Street, New York City. Prior to July 1, 1914, he was employed in the City of New York by the Clyde Steamship Company for longshore work. He was injured on July 1, 1914, while in the employ of the Clyde Steamship Company as a longshoreman.
“2. The Clyde Steamship Company is a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of Maine, where it has its principal office. It also has an office at Pier 36 North River.
“3. During the discharge of the Cherokee and at the time of the accident, the claimant was on board the steamship Cherokee, owned and operated by the Clyde Steamship Company. During the year prior to the accident, Walker had been employed from time to time by the Clyde Steamship Company and could have been assigned to work upon the pier. The Cherokee was, at the time of the accident, moored to and alongside Pier 37, North
River, New York City, lying in navigable waters of the Hudson River. Said pier is leased by Clyde Steamship Company from the City of New York.
“4. While claimant was hooking the rope of a derrick into a load of lumber in the between decks of said vessel for the purpose of unloading it from that vessel, his hand was jammed against the lumber, resulting in laceration of the second finger of the left hand. Claimant was disabled by reason of the injury from July 1, 1914, to July 22, 1914, returning to work upon the latter date.
“5. The business of the Clyde Steamship Company in this state consists solely of carrying passengers and merchandise to New York from other states and carrying passengers and merchandise from New York to other states. All cargo on board the Cherokee, including the lumber aforesaid, had been taken on board in the State of North Carolina and carried by water to New York and was there unloaded from the steamship Cherokee. The claimant was engaged solely in handling said lumber.
“6. The injury was an accidental injury and arose out of and in the course of the employment of claimant by the Clyde Steamship Company. The injury did not result solely from the intoxication of the injured employee while on duty, and was not occasioned by the wilful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another.
“7. The average weekly wage of claimant was $17.30."
Without opinion the Appellate Division affirmed the award, and this action was approved by the Court of Appeals. 215 N. Y. 529.
In Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen, just decided, ante, 205, we considered and disposed of the fundamental question here involved. The legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to extend the statute to conditions like those which the record discloses.
The judgment of the court below must be reversed and
the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in the former case.
Dissenting: MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE PITNEY, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS and MR. JUSTICE CLARKE.
SUTTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
MIHM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Nos. 189, 190. Argued April 20, 1917.-Decided May 21, 1917.
A state law requiring a street car company to carry city detectives free
when in the discharge of duty, Held not an arbitrary or unreasonable
exercise of police power. A state law requiring a street car company to carry city detectives free
while in the discharge of duty is a valid exercise of a reserved power
to amend the company's charter. 87 N. J. L. 192; id., 332, affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Frank Bergen for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John Bentley for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases were argued together. In each the New Jersey statute (P. L. 1912, p. 235,1) requiring street rail
11. On and after the passage of this act each street railway company or corporation referred to in the act to which this act is a supple
way companies to grant free transportation to police officers while engaged in the performance of their public duties, is assailed as invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each a prosecution for assault and battery was brought against an inspector employed by the Public Service Railway Company of Jersey City, for ejecting a city detective who refused to pay his fare. Both detectives were in plain clothes, but showed their badges and claimed the right to ride free of charge. Both detectives were on duty at the time-one was on his way to report at headquarters; the other to interview the victim of a robbery. The defence in each case was the unconstitutionality of the statute and that the detective, having wrongfully refused to pay his fare, was ejected with no more than necessary force. The police justice, before whom the prosecutions were instituted, found the defendants guilty and fined them. These judgments were affirmed in successive appeals to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. 83 N. J. L. 46. 87 N. J. L. 192. The case comes here on writ of error.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey said:
“Policemen are frequently required to be on street cars in the execution of their duties to preserve the peace, to enforce ordinances and to prevent or detect crime. It would be difficult to say that the mere presence of a police officer might not be of value for securing these objects
at any rate, the legislature might reason
ment shall grant free transportation of uniformed public officers while engaged in the performance of their public duties, or police officers of whatever grade or rank acting as detectives, county detectives, or detectives attached to or connected with the office of the prosecutor of the pleas in any county in this State while engaged in the performance of their public duties, whose duties require police duty to be performed without uniform.