Supreme Court of the United States, 1923

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 9, 1923 · McReynolds

261 U.S. 479; 43 S. Ct. 418; 67 L. Ed. 756; 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2582 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. George Clinton, Jr., with whom Mr. Ulysses S. Thomas was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error.., Mr. Irving W. Cole for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

84 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
Span v. John Baizley Iron Works (Pa. 1928)
Perkins v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Tex. Comm'n App. 1927)
Torres v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Mizenko v. Electric Motor & Contracting Co. (Va. 1992)
John Baizley Iron Works v. Span (Supreme Court of the United States 1930)
Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc. (2d Cir. 2012)
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Little (Va. 2005)
Fcci Fund (Feisco) v. Cayce's Excavation (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Rodrigue v. LeGros (La. 1990)
United New York Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Rodermond Industries, Inc. (3d Cir. 1968)
United New York Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Rodermond Industries, Inc. (3d Cir. 1968)
United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Reed Const. Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. (6th Cir. 1963)
Travelers Insurance Company v. C. D. Calbeck (5th Cir. 1961)
Travelers Insurance v. Calbeck (5th Cir. 1961)
Clyde Flowers v. The Travelers Insurance Company (5th Cir. 1958)
Doucette v. Vincent (1st Cir. 1952)
Cushing v. Maryland Cas. Co. (5th Cir. 1952)
Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Alaska Industrial Board (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1950)
Baskin v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)
Emmons v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (Tex. App. 1947)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. McManigal (4th Cir. 1944)
Melanson v. Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1943)

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

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question propounded upon this direct writ of error is whether the District Court rightly held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the libel by which defendant in error sought to recover damages for the death of her husband. 280 Fed. 125.

Plaintiff in error, a corporation engaged in dredging, pile driving, etc,, maintains a yard at Buffalo, New York, and also keeps there scows and tugs. Leo Kierejewski, a master boiler maker, was employed by it to perform services as called upon. Acting under this employment, he began to make repairs upon a scow moored in the navigable waters of Buffalo River. He stood upon a scaffold resting upon a float alongside. One of the Company’s tugs came near, negligently agitated the water, swamped the float and precipitated him into the stream where he drowned.

While performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat, he came to his death upon navigable waters as the result of a tort there committed. The rules of the maritime law supplemented by the local death statute applied and fixed the rights and liabilities of the parties. Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233.

. “ The general doctrine that in contr'act matters admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction and in tort matters upon the locality, has been so frequently asserted by this court that it must now be treated as settled.” Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 476.

In the cause last cited neither Rohde’s general employment nor his activities had any direct relation to naviga *481 tion or commerce — the matter was purely local — and we were of opinion that application of the state statute, as between the parties, would not work material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the general maritime law or interfere with its proper harmony or uniformity.

Here the Circumstances are very different. Not only was the tort committed and effective on navigable waters, but the rights and liabilities of the parties are matters which have direct relation to navigation and commerce. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255; State Industrial Commission of New York v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.