Bull Insular Line, Inc. v. Santiago Carmona
Bull Insular Line, Inc. v. Santiago Carmona
Opinion of the Court
delivered tbe following opinion:
On April 3, 1923, there was filed by the counsel for Basilisa
It appears that on or about March 27, 1921, an unfortunate accident occurred in the waters of the Atlantic ocean north of the town of Barceloneta west of San Juan on the north shore of this Island. There was an overturning of a barge during the process of loading certain vessels, as a result of which four men then employed in that work were drowned. These men were Florencio Garcia, married to Basilisa Cruz; Jose Vargas, married to Dolores Bios; Jose Contes, married to Fer-mina Campos; and Nicolas Guevara, married to Angela Eva Goicoechea. It appears that the widow of Nicolas Guevara received $3,000 from the Workmen’s Belief Commission in the month of November, 1921; it also appears that the widow of Jose Contes received the sum of $3,000 from the Workmen’s Belief Commission in the month of October, 1922. The other two widows have received nothing. One of these two widows who has received nothing is the petitioner in the present intervention. It is claimed by the counsel for said petitioner, the widow of Florencio Garcia, that the officials of the Workmen’s Belief Commission made the payments to the two widows above mentioned of $3,000 each because their husbands at the time of the accident were employed by a certain sugar company and were not employed by the Bull Insular Line, Inc.
By reference to the opinion of this court filed on June 26, 1922, it will be seen that this court held that, inasmuch as the Congress of the United States enacted on June 3, 1922, a certain bill which conferred upon dock workers and repair men the benefits of various compensation laws which had been enacted by various states of the Union, and were in force throughout the same, this court came to the irresistible conclusion that these dock workers and longshoremen and repair' men were not within the various Workmen’s Compensation Laws previous to June 3, 1922. If they had been, then said law of June 3, 1922, would have been unnecessary.
This court further held that inasmuch as the original bill in the present proceeding was filed on March 30, 1922, and believing that the legislature of Porto Rico could not possess more powers than the legislature of anyone of the forty-eight states, this court denied the motion to dismiss the bill in the present proceeding, which motion to dismiss had been filed and argued by counsel representing the Workmen’s Relief Commission of Porto Rico.
For this reason the petition to intervene must be denied; but such denial is of course without prejudice to any rights which the said widow, Basilisa Cruz, may have to bring a suit against the Bull Insular Line, Inc., and it is also without any prejudice whatever to the right of the Workmen’s Belief Commission to furnish compensation to the said Basilisa Cruz, if the former so desire, but this court is without authority to direct any such compensation to be made and expresses no opinion- whatever as to whether such compensation should be made.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- BULL INSULAR LINE, INC., Plff. v. L. SANTIAGO CARMONA, COMPRISING THE WORKMEN'S RELIEF COMMISSION OF PORTO RICO, Dfts. BASILISA CRUZ, VIUDA DE GARCIA
- Status
- Published