Hitchler, W.H.

English

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS

Volume 35 Issue 1 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 35, 1930-1931 10-1-1930 Application of Workmen's Compensation Act to Maritime Injuries W.H. Hitchler Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation W.H. Hitchler, Application of Workmen's Compensation Act to Maritime Injuries, 35 DICK. L. REV. 22 (1930). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol35/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact lja10@psu.edu. NotsAPPLICATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATIONACT TO MARITIME INJURIES-In Baisley Iron Works etal v. Span, 50 Supreme Court Reporter 306, the SupremeCourt of the United States held that an employe who wasinjured while painting a vessel which was tied to a pier inthe Delaware River, at Philadelphia, was not entitled torecover under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Penn-sylvania. (Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended by Actof June 26, 1919, P. L. 642; Pa. St. 1920, sec. 21916 et seq.)The employe had been awarded compensation by theCompensation Board and this award had been affirmed bythe Common Pleas Court, by the Superior Court and bythe Supreme Court (295 Pa. 18, 144 A. 753).The court reversed and remanded the case, on theground that the work being done by the employe had adirect relation to navigation and commerce and that there-fore the rights and liabilities of both the employer andemploye in respect to the latter's injuries were fixed by therules of the maritime law and any cause arising out ofthem was within the admirality jurisdiction. Justice Stonedissented on the ground that the contract of employmenthad no relation to navigation and was nonmaritime. JusticesHolmes and Brandies concurred in the dissent.W. H.HitchlerENJOINING SUIT OUTSIDE OF STATE--In anarticle in the September number of the Pennsylvania BarAssociation Quarterly, by Abraham Marcu and HerbertGoodrich entitled "Enjoining Suit Outside of State", indiscussing the question whether such a suit will be enjoinedbecause it is inconvenient for the defendant to make hisdefence at the place where the action is instituted, it isstated "the question has been passed upon once directlyby the Supreme Court", and Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Hurney,252 Pa. 564 (1916) is cited. The authors of the article haveevidently overlooked Delaware, Lackawanna and Western R.R. v. Ashelman, 300 Pa. 291 (1930), in which the question isdirectly passed upon and discussed at some length.W. H. Hitchler

Application of Workmen\u27s Compensation Act to Maritime Injuries

bepress Legal Repository

https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&amp;context=dlra

Application of Workmen\u27s Compensation Act to Maritime Injuries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS

bepress Legal Repository