Pennsylvania Company v. O'Rourke/Opinion of the Court

This certiorari requires us to determine which federal industrial accident statute-the Federal Employers' Liability Act or the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act-applies to the circumstances of this case. The petitioning Railroad had employed O'Rourke in its Harismus Cove Yard at Jersey City since 1942 as a 'freight brakeman.' He worked as part of a five-man crew making up trains. Their duties included work on the petitioner's car floats that moved freight and passenger cars from and to the Yard by water. The accident occurred during the night of January 28, 1948. Having already removed cars from three floats, the crew began to unload one carrying box cars. O'Rourke was required to climb up on each and release the hand-brakes, so that the cars could be pulled off the float by the engine. During the process, he fell from one and sustained the injury which is the basis for this suit. It was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., alleging a faulty brake mechanism maintained in violation of the Safety Appliance Acts, 27 Stat. 531, 45 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., as the causative factor. The District Court granted the railroad's motion to dismiss on the ground that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., applied exclusively, 99 F.Supp. 506, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the Liability Act covered 'railroad employees injured while engaged in railroad work on navigable waters'. It decided respondent was 'not employed in maritime employment * *  * within the meaning of the Compensation Act'. 194 F.2d 612, 615. We granted certiorari, 344 U.S. 811, 73 S.Ct. 11, because of an alleged conflict with an earlier decision of this Court, Nogueira v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 281 U.S. 128, 50 S.Ct. 303, 74 L.Ed. 754.

The need for a federal statute of the Harbor Workers' Act type and scope became obvious after Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, decided in 1917, wherein it was held that neither the Federal Employers' Liability Act nor the state compensation statute applied to a railroad employee engaged in loading a vessel of the company which had no relation to its railroading operations. Specifically, the state act was held inapplicable because the matter fell exclusively within the federal admiralty jurisdiction:

'The work of a stevedore, in which the deceased was engaging,     is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime      contract; the injuries which he received were likewise      maritime; and the rights and liabilities of the parties in      connection therewith were matters clearly within the      admiralty jurisdiction.' 244 U.S. at page 217, 37 S.Ct. at     page 529.

The resulting federal statute took the form of a compensation act to assure injured employees who were not seamen a prompt and certain recovery, rather than an employers' liability statute, such as was extended in 1920 to seamen by the Jones Act, 38 Stat. 1185, 46 U.S.C. § 688, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. A summary of the congressional attempts to bring admiralty law into harmony with modern concepts of the duty of an employer although without fault to carry the burden of industrial accidents, appears in the Nogueira case, 281 U.S. at pages 135-136, 50 S.Ct. at page 305. These efforts failed to meet the constitutional test of uniformity held essential in admiralty law in order to obviate conflicting requirements in maritime commerce. Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 44 S.Ct. 302, 68 L.Ed. 646. They failed because Congress attempted to place legislation on maritime accidents under state compensation laws. After this Court's suggestion in the Washington case, 264 U.S. at page 227, 44 S.Ct. at page 305, Congress adopted the valid, exclusive and uniform compensation act now in effect for longshoremen and harbor workers. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598. Seamen preferred to take the risks of the Jones Act. Nogueira v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., supra, 281 U.S. at page 136, 50 S.Ct. at page 305. This act and the Jones Act provided means for indemnification for injuries for all maritime employees who were beyond the constitutional reach of state legislation. A quarter of a century of experience has not caused Congress to change the plan. The 'Jensen line of demarcation between state and federal jurisdiction' has been accepted. Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U.S. 249, 256, 63 S.Ct. 225, 229, 87 L.Ed. 246. New Jersey could not have enacted statutes granting compensation for respondent's injury on navigable water. Therefore respondent comes within the coverage of that portion of § 903(a) that includes those outside the reach of state compensation laws.

The Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 51, note 1, supra, gives a right of recovery due to defects because of carrier negligence in, among other equipment, 'boats.' We need not, however, in this case, determine whether the car float is a 'boat' that should be regarded as in substance a part of a railroad's extension. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, supra, 244 U.S. at page 213, 37 S.Ct. at page 527. It is clear that whether or not the boat is an extension of the railroad under the Liability Act is immaterial. The later Harbor Workers' Act by §§ 903(a) and 905 covered such injuries on navigable water and made its coverage exclusive. Nogueira v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., supra, 281 U.S. at pages 130-131, 50 S.Ct. at page 303.

Whether or not the Harbor Workers Act applies to the exclusion of the Employers' Liability Act, by virtue of the provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 905, 33 U.S.C.A. § 905, depends on § 903 which defines its 'coverage':

'(a) Compensation shall be payable under this chapter in     respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if      the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon      the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry      dock) and if recovery for the disability or death through      workmen's compensation proceedings may not validly be      provided by State law. * *  * '

Section 904 fixes liability for this compensation with the 'employer,' who in turn is defined by § 902(4):

'The term 'employer' means an employer any of whose employees     are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part,      upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any      dry dock.)'

The Court considered these provisions in a similar setting in the Nogueira case, supra. That case involved a railroad employee injured while loading freight into cars located on a moored car float. The Harbor Workers' Act was held to apply. As was pointed out:

'The definition (§ 903(a)) is manifestly broad enough to     embrace a railroad company, provided it has employees who      'are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part,      upon the navigable waters of the United States'. * *  * From      the standpoint of maritime employment, it obviously makes no      difference whether the freight is placed in the hold or on      the deck of a vessel, or whether the vessel is a car float or      a steamship. A car float in navigable waters is subject to     the maritime law like any other vessel.' 281 U.S. at pages      132 and 134, 50 S.Ct. at page 304.

But respondent contends, in support of the result below, that the cases are distinguishable and that this language does not determine his claim. He emphasizes that Nogueira was engaged in loading the cars. This is pictured as an operation far more similar to the popular conception of a longshoreman's job than his own, which he insists was 'railroading.'

We are clear, however, that the emphasis on the nature of respondent's duties here misses the mark. The statute applies, by its own terms, to accidents on navigable waters when the employer has any employees engaged in maritime service. The portions of the Nogueira opinion quoted bring this railroad company within this category, since its car float operations are there held to be maritime, as they obviously are. Whether the injury occurred to an employee loading freight into cars on the float, as in the Nogueira case, or to one like respondent moving loaded cars from a float could make no difference. Both employments are maritime. See Nogueira v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., supra, 281 U.S. at page 134, 50 S.Ct. at page 304. Besides § 902(4) is directed at the employer when it speaks of maritime employment, not at the work the employee is doing. The exclusive coverage of §§ 903, 905 extends to an employee of an employer, made liable by § 904, when he is injured, in the course of his employment, on navigable water. The Court of Appeals, we think, is in error in holding that the statute requires, as to the employee, both injury on navigable water and maritime employment as a ground for coverage by the Compensation Act. An injured worker's particular activity at the time of injury determines of course whether he was injured in the course of his employment within § 902(2), and whether he was a member of the crew of the vessel within the exceptions of §§ 902(3) and 903(a)(1). This explains the emphasis on the factor of the individual's job in Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc., 314 U.S. 244, 245-246, 62 S.Ct. 221, 222 223, 86 L.Ed. 184, and South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732.

The Court of Appeals thought that this Court's Nogueira opinion left open, as did the Second Circuit's opinion in Nogueira, 'that the mere locus of the accident necessarily determines the right.' 32 F.2d 179 at page 182. We read the Nogueira case differently. There it was said:

'There was no exclusion of stevedores or of those sustaining     injuries upon navigable waters in loading or unloading a      vessel unless it was under eighteen tons net. The application     of the act in such cases was explicitly made to depend upon      the question whether the injury occurred upon navigable      waters and recovery therefor could not validly be provided by      a state compensation statute.' 281 U.S. at page 136, 50 S.Ct. at page 305.

Analogous cases lend weight to our conclusion. Buren v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 50 F.2d 407, is indistinguishable on its facts. The result in Parker, as well, is totally inconsistent with any 'duties test.' Armistead, the employee there, was a janitor with the motor boat company. He had been ordered to ride in one of the boats during a test trip in order to keep a lookout for hidden objects. 314 U.S. at page 246, 62 S.Ct. at page 223. Compensation under the Harbor Workers' Act could not have been paid in connection with his death if we were to test its applicability by the nature of his regular work. A number of lower court cases are in similar vein. Those we collect in the margin deal with various types of construction and service workers, obviously not themselves engaged in traditional 'maritime employment,' if one were to look solely to the particular type of job they were engaged for. Each was held to fall within the scope of the statute. Section 902(4) requires the employer to pay compensation if he has 'any' employees so engaged. If, then, the accident occurs on navigable waters, the Act must apply if the injured longshoreman was there in furtherance of his employer's business, irrespective of whether he himself can be labeled 'maritime.' Such are the admitted facts of this case. The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act applies.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice MINTON, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACK, and Mr. Justice CLARK join, dissenting.