Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
Matter of Anderson v. . Johnson Lighterage Company
Matter of Anderson v. . Johnson Lighterage Co., 224 N.Y. 539 (New York Court of Appeals 1918)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1918-06-04
- Topic
- general
McLaughlin, J. The claimant, at the time he was injured, was a longshoreman in the employ of the Johnson Lighterage Company, which had a contract to load a vessel in navigable waters. While thus engaged he sustained an injury by slipping on a pier from which the cargo was being taken. He made a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the industrial commission allowed the same. Its award was reversed by *540 the Appellate Division, the claim dismissed, and the commission appeals to this court.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Matter of Anderson v. . Johnson Lighterage Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 10 opinions
The claimant, at the time he was injured, was a longshoreman in the employ of the Johnson Lighterage Company, which had a contract to load a vessel in navigable waters. While thus engaged he sustained an injury by slipping on a pier from which the cargo was being taken. He made a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the industrial commission allowed the same. Its award was reversed by *540 the Appellate Division, the claim dismissed, and the commission appeals to this court.
In my opinion, for the reasons stated by me in Matter of Doey v. Howland Co., Inc., decided herewith, Anderson, at the time he was injured, was engaged in performing a maritime contract. The industrial commission, therefore, had no-jurisdiction to make the award; it was properly vacated by the Appellate Division, and the claim dismissed.
The order of the Appellate Division, therefore, should be affirmed, with costs against the state industrial commission.
His cock, Ch. J., Chase and Collin, JJ., concur; Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ., dissent.
Order affirmed.