Editors, Law Review

English

University of Chicago Law School: Chicago Unbound

RECENT CASESAdmiralty-Workmen's Compensation-Locus of Accident as Determining Juris-diction to Award Compensation-[United States].-Whle unloading a vessel lying innavigable waters the plaintiff, a longshoreman, was knocked from the deck by a hoistand sustained injuries from falling on a wharf. He recovered an award under the stateworkmen's compensation act. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, it washeld, the commission had no authority to grant an award. Since the accident happenedon navigable water, the cause of action was governed exclusively by admiralty law.Minnie v. Port Huron Terminal Co., 55 Sup. Ct. 884 (1935).The federal courts have jurisdiction of all cases involving admiralty or maritimeaffairs. U.S. Const., Art. 3, § 2; Jud. Code, §§ 24(3), 256(3). Since this jurisdiction isexclusive, workmen's compensation acts are invalid so far as they encroach upon it.Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917); Messel v. Foundation Co., 274 U.S.427 (1927). Consequently, suits for injuries sustained in maritime work under mari-time contracts must be brought in the federal courts, Peters v. Veasey, 251 U.S. 121(1919); American Shipbuilding Co. v. Aros, 128 Ohio St. 258, 19i N.E. 2 (1934); and alongshoreman's contract of employment is essentially maritime. Peters v. Veasey, 251U.S. 121 (1919).But the place of the accident will determine which law applies. Kenward v. TheAdmiral Peoples, 55 Sup. Ct. 885 (1935). If the impact is received on land, the federallaws do not govern. Smith & Son v. Taylor, 276 U.S. 179 (1928) (converse of principalcase). If the accident occurs on a vessel in navigable waters, the federal law applies.Washington v. Dawson, 264 U.S. 219 (1924); Lawson v. N.Y.S.S.Co., 148 La. 290,86 So. 815 (1921); Kelly v. Eastern S.S. Lines, 278 Mass. 361, 179 N.E. 921 (1932).There has been some conflict, however, in spite of this very definite rule. See Ler-mond's Case, 122 Me. 319, 119 At. 864 (1923) (accident must end as well as begin overnavigable waters to give admiralty jurisdiction); West v. Kozer, 1O4 Ore. 94, 2o6 Pac.542 (1922) (an elective compensation act held not avoided because accident occurredover navigable waters). A reference to the principal case and to its converse, Smith &Son v. Taylor, supra, shows that the Supreme Court uniformly looks to the place wherethe original impact was received to determine the applicable law.The conflicting cases may be explained by the fact that prior to 1927 an employeecompelled to sue in admiralty to recover for injuries, sustained in the course of his em-ployment, met obstacles which did not exist under workmen's compensation. He hadto prove negligence. Luekenbach S.S. Co. v. Campbell, 8 F. (2d) 223 (C.C.A. 9th 1925).His suit was subject to the defenses of contributory negligence of fellow servant andassumption of risk. Tie Max Morris, 137 U.S. i (1890); Cassil v. U.S. Emergency FleetCorp., 289 Fed. 774 (C.C.A. 9th 1923). See Robinson, Legal Adjustments of PersonalInjuries in the Maritime Industry, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 223 (1930). This was precisely theevil which the state workmen's compensation acts sought to remedy. i Boyd, Work-men's Compensation § 4 (i913). Consequently, after the general adoption of the com-pensation acts by the states, there was a strong tendency to bring many of these casesTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEWwithin the acts. Two amendments of the judicial Code §§ 24 and 256, 40 Stat. 395(1917), 42 Stat. 635 (1922), sought to save for injured employees, other than the mas-ter and members of the crew of vessels on navigable waters, their rights and remediesunder their own state workmen's compensation acts. However, these two amendmentshave been declared unconstitutional as destructive of the uniformity of maritime juris-diction, and as discriminatory in attempting to deprive federal courts of jurisdictionover certain admiralty cases while vesting them with jurisdiction over others. Knicker-bocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920); Washingto'n v. Dawson, 264 U.S.219 (1924). In 1927 the Longshoremen's and Harborworkers' Compensation Act waspassed, 44 Stat. 1424 (1927), making federal law in these cases comparable to the statecompensation acts. See Athearn, The Longshoremen's Acts and the Courts, 23 Calif.L. Rev. 129 (i935). With the reason for the extending of the scope of the state actsgone, that tendency should disappear, and the line between the two jurisdictionsshould appear more clearly.Constitutional Law-Applicability of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to StateLegislation-Sufficiency of Statutory Language-[Federal].-A Florida statute pro-hibited the conduct of "any 'marathon,' 'marathon dance,' 'walkathon,' 'skatathon,''bikathon,' or any other physical contest of a similar nature." The plaintiff, a promoterof a marathon, seeks to enjoin the enforcement of this statute, contending that becausethe words "marathon," "walkathon," etc., had no established meanings, there was noascertainable standard of guilt and that he was therefore being deprived of his right todue process and his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. Held,the enforcement of the statute will not infringe plaintiff's rights as secured by the fifthand sixth amendments of the Federal Constitution. Weaver v. Stone, ii F. Supp. 559(D.C. Fla. 1935).A statute which forbids, or requires, the doing of an act in terms so vague and un-certain that men of common intelligence must guess and differ as to its application,violates the requirements of due process of law. See 3 Willoughby, ConstitutionalLaw § 1142 (2d ed. 1929). Criminal statutes of the Federal government have beenbrought within the purview of this general rule by application to them of the fifth andsixth amendments of the federal constitution, the former amendment requiring dueprocess of law, and the latter, that a party to a criminal suit shall know the nature andcause of the accusation against him. U.S. v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921);Nash v. U.S., 229 U.S. 373 (1913). But these amendments are not applicable to statestatutes, for, since Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Barron v. Baltimore (7 Pet.(U.S.) 243 (1833)), in which the fifth amendment was declared operative as a checkon the federal government only, there has never been any serious doubt that the firstten amendments are inapplicable to state legislation. Black, Constitutional Law 42(4 th ed. 3927). The Supreme Court, however, has extended to state legislation also therequirement that statutes be reasonably definite and certain by interpreting the dueprocess clause of the fourteenth amendment as obligating the states to frame theircriminal statutes so that no defendant shall be held responsible for offenses so in-definitely described that he cannot fairly determine whether or not he is committingthem. Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (1927); Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman,266 U.S. 497 (1925); Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343 (1918); International Har-vester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 (1914). Since the same standards have been estab-

Recent Cases: Admiralty. Workmen\u27s Compensation. Locus of Accident as Determining Jurisdiction to Award Compensation

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&amp;context=uclrev

Recent Cases: Admiralty. Workmen\u27s Compensation. Locus of Accident as Determining Jurisdiction to Award Compensation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Chicago Law School: Chicago Unbound