Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Claim of Anderson v. Johnson Lighterage Co. 224 N.Y. 539

← Cases

Claim of Anderson v. Johnson Lighterage Co.

224 N.Y. 539 Court N.Y. Decision date 1918-06-04 English

Delivered by McLaughlin, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 539
In the Matter of the Claim of Louis Anderson against Johnson Lighterage Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Commission, Appellant.

Headnote

Workmen’s compensation — state industrial commission without jurisdiction to m.ake award to workmen injured while engaged on maritime contract.
A longshoreman employed in loading a vessel in navigable waters is engaged in the performance of a maritime contract and the state industrial commission has" no jurisdiction to make an award for an injury sustained by his slipping on the pier from which the cargo was being taken. Matter of Doey v. Howland Co., Inc., 224 N. Y. 30 , followed.
Anderson v. Johnson Lighterage Co., 182 App. Div. 152 , affirmed.
(Argued April 25, 1918;
decided June 4, 1918.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 8, 1918, reversing an award of the state industrial commission made under the Workmen’s Compensation Law and dismissing the claim.
Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for appellant.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew and W. L. Glenney for respondents.

The claimant, at the time he was injured, was a longshoreman in the employ of the Johnson Lighterage Company, which had a contract to load a vessel in navigable waters. While thus engaged he sustained an injury by slipping on a pier from which the cargo was being taken. He made a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the industrial commission allowed the same. Its award was reversed by

p. 540
the Appellate Division, the claim dismissed, and the commission appeals to this court.

In my opinion, for the reasons stated by me in Matter of Doey v. Howland Co., Inc., decided herewith, Anderson, at the time he was injured, was engaged in performing a maritime contract. The industrial commission, therefore, had no-jurisdiction to make the award; it was properly vacated by the Appellate Division, and the claim dismissed.

The order of the Appellate Division, therefore, should be affirmed, with costs against the state industrial commission.

His cock, Ch. J., Chase and Collin, JJ., concur; Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ., dissent.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited