Claim of Lahti v. Terry & Tench Co.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Garrisey v. Westshore Marina Associates (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)
- Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash. (Supreme Court of the United States 1942)
- Zubik v. Bethlehem Steel Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
- Dourrieu v. Bd. Com'rs Port of New Orleans (La. Ct. App. 1935)
- Arundel Corp. v. Ayers (Md. 1934)
- Sunny Point Packing Co. v. Faigh (9th Cir. 1933)
- In re Famous Players Lasky Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1929)
- Claim of Heaney v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co. (N.Y. 1935)
- Span v. Accident & Guarantee Corp. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927)
- Manufacturers' Liability Insurance v. Hamilton (New York Supreme Court 1927)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Claimant, employed in the construction of a pier, was injured while standing on a floating raft in navigable waters.
*294 In such circumstances, the maritime law must fix his rights and remedies, for the locus of the accident was maritime, though the service was not (Grant-Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469; Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 266 U. S. 171; Danielsen v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 235 N. Y. 439; Butler v. Robbins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 240 N. Y. 23).
A different question would be here if the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as it stood at the time of the injury, had been elective rather than compulsory (Grant-Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, supra; Danielsen v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., supra), or if the employer and the insurance carrier, as well as the claimant, had chosen under a later amendment (Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 113, as amended by L. 1922, ch. 615) to waive their admiralty remedies. The act was ineffective, in so far as it was compulsory, to displace the law of the sea; and employer and carrier, refusing to take advantage of the optional element brought into it by amendment, insist upon their maritime rights.
We do not stop to inquire whether the raft is to be classified as a boat, for however that question were to be answered, the territorial basis of jurisdiction would-remain (Gonsalves v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., supra).
The order of the Appellate Division and the determination of the State Industrial Board should be reversed, and the claim dismissed, with costs against the said Board in all courts.
Hiscock, Ch. J., McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Pound, J., absent.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.