صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

tion act of another jurisdiction, provided question is the character of the compensathey did not conflict with our law or pub- tion. Mr. Bradbury, repudiating his earlier lic policy, and the machinery provided for | view, stoutly maintains that, if the act be the ascertainment and collection of the contractual, the contracts arising will, uncompensation could be used in our jurisdic

tion.

less a contrary intent appears, be found to cover injuries without as well as within the state. We think his later conclusion sound and one which will prove beneficial alike to employer and employee.

Where, as with us, the determination of the award is committed to a board or commission under a specified procedure, there will be serious obstacles to the enforcement The questions of dependency are settled of the contract in a foreign jurisdiction. by the findings of the commissioner. Noth1 Bradbury, Workmen's Compensation Law,ing appears to indicate that he committed 2d ed. p. 52. If it should be necessary to an error of law in making these findings so rule, no hardship would result. The or in drawing his conclusions from them. parties in interest would be relegated to The Superior Court is advised to render the place where they had elected to make its judgment dismissing these appeals. their contract, and no questions of conflict of laws could arise. At the base of this The other Judges concur.

Annotation-Extraterritorial jurisdiction of workmen's compensation act; conflict of laws.

As to the application and effect of workmen's compensation acts generally, see annotation, ante, 23.

It is not proposed to enter into the field of conflict of laws further than to state concisely the precise holding of the cases construing the workmen's compensation statutes. Any attempt to deduce general rules from these cases would be misleading, since they are governed by general principles which are not in any way peculiar to these statutes. The question of the extraterritorial effect of these statutes is so interwoven with the question of conflict of laws that the two subjects will be discussed together.

It is to be noted that REYNOLDS v. DAY and PENDER v. H. & B. AMERICAN MACH. Co. present distinct questions: The first, whether, in a state adopting the principles of industrial insurance, an action for damages may be maintained in accordance with the law of the state in which the injury was received; the second, whether an action of damages may be maintained in accordance with a law of the forum, where an industrial insurance act is in force in the state in which both the contract of employment was made and the injury was received.

Although the contract of employment was made in New York, the New Jersey compensation act applies where the injury occurred in New Jersey, and the contract of employment contemplated the performance of the employee's duties partly in New York and partly in New Jersey, and there was nothing in the contract to show that the employer sought to be exempted from the New

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

But the New York court has held that the provisions of the New Jersey statute apply only where the contract of hiring was made in that state. Pensabene v. S. & J. Auditor Co. (1913) 155 App. Div. 368, 140 N. Y. Supp. 266. The court held that a complaint in an action under the New Jersey statute, which fails to set up a hiring made in that state, will be dismissed on demurrer.

The supreme court of New York state does not have jurisdiction of a proceeding under 18 of the New Jersey act, which provides that in case of a dispute or failure to agree upon a claim for compensation between the employer and employee, either party may submit the claim to the judge of the court of common pleas of such county as would have jurisdiction in a civil case, merely because the complaint alleges that personal service cannot be obtained upon the defendant, which is a corporation and has removed its place of business to the state of New York, in which state it was incorporated. Lehmann v. Ramo Films (1915) Misc. 155 N. Y. Supp. 1032.

A workman cannot claim to be ignorant of the compensation act of Wiscon

There is a sharp conflict of authority as to whether or not the compensation act has extraterritorial effect. It has been held that the Massachusetts act does not cover accidents occurring outside the limits of the state.

sin, although the contract of employ- | force, similar effect must be accorded to ment was made in Minnesota, in which like laws of other states. Agreements state he worked for some time, but made by employees to waive the prolater went to work in Wisconsin at the visions of the act are made invalid; and request of the employer. Johnson v. it was provided that no payment under Nelson (1914) 128 Minn. 158, 150 N. W. the act shall be liable in any way for 620. debts of the employee. The court also called attention to the fact that the act was copied largely from the English workmen's compensation act and that that act, although it has been generally held to be inoperative outside of the United Kingdom, in express terms, applies to masters, seamen, and apprentices in the sea service under certain conditions, and definitely points out the manner of proving and enforcing claims for injury occurring therein with reference plainly to those outside the United Kingdom, and had the legislature intended to make the act apply extraterritorially, it should have so expressly provided.

The court further said that a number of foreign acts made careful and definite provisions for accidents occurring outside of their territory, and in a footnote the following list was given: 24 Annual Report of U. S. Com. of Labor, vol. 2 (1909) France: Acts of 1898, 1902, 1905, and 1906, p. 2501; Austria: Law of 1894, art. 2, pp. 2456, 2457; Belgium: Act of 1903, art. 26, p. 2464; Germany: Law of 1900 (a), art. 4, p. 2517 (see also German Ins. Code of 1911, art. 157, translated in Boyd, Workmen's Compensation, p. 1252); Hungary : Act No. 19 of 1907, arts. 4, 5, & 6, p. 2569; Italy: Law of 1904, arts. 21 & 25, p. 2617; Luxemburg: Law of 1902, art. 3, pp. 2621, 2622; Netherlands: Law of 1901, art. 9, p. 2641.

Thus, in Gould's Case (1913) 215 Mass. 480, 102 N. E. 693, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 372, 4 N. C. C. A. 60, in holding that the Massachusetts act had no application to accidents occurring outside the state, the court said that, in the absence of unequivocal language to the contrary, it was not to be presumed that statutes respecting this matter are designed to control conduct or fix the rights of parties beyond the territorial limits of the state. The court further pointed out that there were several provisions of the statute which indicate solely intrastate operation. It was provided that the employee who had received an injury should submit himself, on request, to be examined by a physician or surgeon authorized to practise medicine under the laws of the commonwealth; the part of the act dealing with procedure dealt only with Boards and courts within the commonwealth; the hearings of the committee on arbitration were to be held in the city or town where an injury occurred; upon resort to the court, copies of the papers were to be presented "to the superior court for the county in which the injury occurred, or for the county of Suffolk," in which county the officers of the Industrial Accident Board were; employers were to make report of accidents within forty-eight hours. The Massachusetts employees' insurance association created by the act, with power to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations for the prevention of injury on the premises of the subscribers, "and to this end its inspectors shall have free access to such premises during working hours," could have such power only within the state. The act disclosed no purpose to exempt from its operation nonresident employees of alien employers while working within the state, and if the Massachusetts act is to be in- Section 7 of the English act makes terpreted as having extraterritorial provision for awarding compensation for

So, too, the Michigan act does not apply to injuries occurring outside the borders of the state. Keyes-Davis Co. v. Alderdyce, Detroit Legal News, May 3d, 1913 (Mich.) 3 N. C. C. A. 639, note. The court based its decision upon two grounds: First, a general rule of statutory construction that every statute is confined in its operation to persons, property, and rights which are within the jurisdiction of the legislature which enacted it; second, the provision of pt. 3, § 8, of the act, which requires that the hearing to adjudicate disputed claims for compensation "shall be held at the locality where the injury occurred."

injuries to workmen in the sea service; | he is performing the duties of his emexcept as it is expressly given in 7, ployment. The statute must have a the act has no application outside the broad and liberal interpretation to proterritorial limits of the United Kingdom. tect the employee for all injuries reTomalin v. S. Pearson & Son [1909] 2 ceived in the course of the employment, K. B. (Eng.) 61, 78 L. J. K. B. N. S. and to charge upon the fund or the in863, 100 L. T. N. S. 685, 25 Times L. R. surer the loss which otherwise must fall 477, 2 B. W. C. C. 1 (English contractor upon the master. By complying with the not liable for compensation for death act the employer is guaranteed protecof workman engaged in working for him tion, and the moneys which he has paid in the island of Malta); Schwartz v. In- into the fund or secured to be paid must dia Rubber, Gutta Percha & Teleg. bear the losses which they were intended Works Co. [1912] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 299, to meet; otherwise the employer and the [1912] W. N. 98, 28 Times L. R. 331, 81 employee are suffering at the hands of L. J. K. B. N. S. 780, [1912] W. C. Rep. the state." 190, 106 L. T. N. S. 706, 5 B. W. C. C. 390 (no compensation for death of work-plies to the operation without the state, man fost in the Bay of Biscay while on his way to work at Tenerisse); Hicks v. Maxton (1907, C. C.) 124 L. T. Jo. | (Eng.) 135, 1 B. W. C. C. 150 (no compensation for injuries to charwoman taken from England by a French woman to do work for her in France and injured while in that country).

The New York statute expressly ap

"including repair, of vessels other than vessels of other states or countries used in interstate or foreign commerce." In Edwardsen V. Jarvis Lighterage Co. (1915) 168 App. Div. 368, 153 N. Y. Supp. 391, it was held that the captain of a lighter who was injured while his lighter was being unloaded was engaged

A different rule, however, prevails in in the "operation" of the lighter, and other states.

That the Connecticut statute has an extraterritorial effect is the decision in KENNERSON V. THAMES TOWBOAT Co.

So, it was held in Rounsaville v. Central R. Co. (1915) — N. J. L. 94 Atl. 392, that the fact that the accident happened in another state is irrelevant when the proceedings were brought in New Jersey for liability under the New Jersey act, and the contract of employment was a New Jersey contract.

And the New York act has been held to apply to accidents which have occurred outside of the state.

One argument in support of the contention that the New York statute applies extraterritorially is that the amount which an employer is required to pay into the insurance fund is based solely upon the size of his pay roll and the character of his business, and the fact that one of his employees may from time to time be outside the state in the course of his employment does not diminish the amount of premium which the employer has to pay. Spratt v. Sweeney & G. Co. (1915) 168 App. Div. 403, 153 N. Y. Supp. 505. The court said: "The employee cannot refuse to do the master's bidding within the course of the employment upon the ground that it requires him to pass over the state line, and the law cannot contemplate that he shall lose the benefit of the act because

consequently was entitled to compensation although the injury took place outside of the state.

A lower New York court has held that the workmen's compensation act of Germany, to which both the employer and employee subscribe, is a bar to an action in New York state for injuries to the employee received while on the vessel of defendant as it was leaving quarantine to dock at New York City. Schweitzer v. Hamburg-American Line (1912) 78 Misc. 448, 138 N. Y. Supp. 944. The court said: "A foreign law to which both employer and employee engaged in interstate and foreign commerce and transportation have subscribed, and upon the basis of which the contract of employment was made and entered into, where the cars or ships of the employer enter our state, and in or upon which, while within our borders, an accident occurs to the employee through his employer's negligence, particularly where the contract of employment provides for a fixed compensation in case of specified injury to take the place of a right of action at law, and which is lawful both in the place where made and that in which the cause of action arose, should obtain recognition and enforcement here. hold otherwise works not for benefit, but rather injury to our interstate and foreign commerce." W. M. G.

To

[blocks in formation]

mission, 236 U. S. 151, 59 L. ed. 508, P.U.R.1915A, 845, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276.

A marine tort or a tort committed upon a vessel engaged in business wholly within the state is actionable at common law.

Gilmore) 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. ed. 264, 28 The Hamilton (Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 133; Woolsey, International Law, 6th ed. p. 72; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 4 L. ed. 97; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. ed. 451; Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. ed. 74; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 559.

Messrs. W. V. Tanner, Attorney General, and John M. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents:

If a voyage is made upon navigable waters of the United States, the fact that the vessel is engaged solely in intrastate commerce, carrying on trade between ports out of the jurisdiction of admiralty. of the same state, does not take the case

1 Cyc. 817; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175, 47 L. ed. 760, 764, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 483; Workman v. New York, 179 U. S. 558,

APPLICATION for a writ of mandamus 45 L. ed. 319, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212; The

to compel respondents to make a de- Thielbek, 211 Fed. 685.

mand upon certain navigation companies The particular injury described in the for premiums, in accordance with the sched-petition constitutes a maritime tort, and is ule set out in the workmen's compensation within the jurisdiction of the admiralty act. Writ denied.

court.

Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 58 L. ed. 1208, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1157, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Charles H. Miller, for petitioner: The act of the legislature of the state of Washington is not a regulation of com- The state legislature is without power to merce, but of police; and, being so, it was prescribe an exclusive remedy, or to impassed in the exercise of a power which pose upon the employer an additional burrightfully belonged to the state. The state den in the payment of premiums, as a conof Washington possessed the power to pass sideration for relieving the employer from this law before the adoption of the Con-actions for injuries which may be brought stitution of the United States. The end by the workman, unless it can protect the and means here used are within the com- employer from all remedies which the inpetency of the states. jured workman may have against him.

The Fred E. Sander, 208 Fed. 724, 4 N. C. C. A. 891.

State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 466, 117 Pac. 1101, 2 N. C. C. A. 823, 3 N. C. C. A. Mr. J. S. Robinson, amicus curiæ: 599; State v. Mountain Timber Co. 75 The fact that seamen have remedies in Wash. 581, L.R.A.—, 135 Pac. 645, 4 admiralty prevents the application of the N. C. C. A. 811; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. workmen's compensation act to the opera1, 6 L. ed. 23; New York v. Miln, 11 Pet.tion of Puget Sound steamboats engaged 102, 9 L. ed. 648; Boston Beer Co. v. Massa- exclusively in intrastate trade. chusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. ed. 989; Stone Report of the Atty. Gen. 1911-1912, p. v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, 25 L. ed. 155; Stoll v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co. 205 1079; Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. Fed. 169; The Fred E. Sander, 208 Fed. 125 U. S. 465, 31 L. ed. 700, 1 Inters. Com. | 725, 4 N. C. C. A. 891, 212 Fed. 545. 5 N. Rep. 823, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062; | C. C. A. 97; Murray v. Pacific Coast S. S. Wilmington Transp. Co. v. Railroad Com- Co. 207 Fed. 688; Meese v. Northern P. R.

Note. As to the application and effect of workmen's compensation acts generally,

see annotation, ante, 23.

As to the limitation of the application of state compensation statutes by Federal laws, see annotation, post, 461.

Co. 206 Fed. 222, 127 C. C. A. 622, 211
Fed. 254, 4 N. C. C. A. 819; Barrett v.
Grays Harbor Commercial Co. 209 Fed. 95,
4 N. C. C. A. 756.

Seamen are a class apart from all other classes of workmen named in the act

[ocr errors]

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 285, 41 L. ed. 715, 719, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 159, 47 L. ed. 760, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 483.

Main, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an original application in this court for a writ of mandate to compel the Vessel operators are a class apart from members of the state Industrial Insurance other employers named in the act, because Commission to make a demand upon the their vessels are wholly under the control Puget Sound Navigation Company and the of Congress. Inland Navigation Company for the perWhite's Bank v. Smith (White's Bank v.centage of the pay rolls of these companies, The Robert Emmett) 7 Wall. 646, 653, 19 | in accordance with the schedule set out in L. ed. 211, 213; Harrison v. St. Louis & the workmen's compensation act passed at S. F. R. Co. 232 U. S. 328, 58 L. ed. 624, the legislative session for the year 1911 L.R.A.1915F, 1187, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; (Laws 1911, chap. 74). De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398, Fed. Cas. No. 3,776; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 570, 18 L. ed. 451, 456; The Glide, 167 U. S. 608, 42 L. ed. 296, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930. The power of the Federal government to enact legislation for the benefit of seamen is exclusive.

Butler v. Boston & S. S. S. Co. 130 U. S. 527, 555, 32 L. ed. 1017, 1024, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 466, 117 Pac. 1101, 2 N. C. C. A. 823, 3 N. C. C. A. 599; Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co. 216 Fed. 566; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 237, 47 L. ed. 459, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 288, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 522; Erie R. Co. v. New York, 233 U. S. 671, 58 L. ed. 1149, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 266, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 756, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 138; Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439, 59 L. ed. 661, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, 56 L. ed. 257, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; Northern P. R. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 371, 56 L. ed. 237, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 160.

Admitting the right of the state to pass the compensation act under its police power, the act, so far as it relates to seamen and their employers, comes into conflict with and is repugnant to existing Federal laws. Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 243, 16 L. ed. 243; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 419, 58 L. ed. 1382, L.R.A. 1915E, 942, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 790; Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. ed. 585; Re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 631, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 840; Craig v. Continental Ins. Co. 141 U. S. 638, 35 L. ed. 886, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97; La Bourgogne (Deslions La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique) 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. ed. 973, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Watkins, 223 U. S. 723, 56 L. ed. 631, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co. 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. ed. 1038, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep 379, 617; Seese v. Monongahela River Consol. Coal & Coke Co. 155 Fed. 507; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 99, 104, 39 L. ed. 910, 913, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802.

v.

|

The facts as stated in the petition, and the affidavit in support thereof, are in substance as follows: On the 31st day of May, 1914, and for some time prior thereto, the Puget Sound Navigation Company and the Inland Navigation Company were foreign corporations, with their principal place of business in this state at Seattle. These corporations were engaged in operating steamboats upon the waters of Puget Sound within the state of Washington. They were the owners of the steamship Whatcom, engaged in carrying passengers and freight on Puget Sound for hire. On or about the date mentioned one Frank Jarvis was in the employ of the companies mentioned, working upon the steamship Whatcom as an oiler. While engaged in this occupation, Jarvis sustained an injury which he claims was due to the negligence of the companies mentioned. taining this injury, he presented a claim to the Industrial Insurance Commission. This claim was rejected by the Commission, for the reason that it had no jurisdiction over the navigation companies mentioned. The navigation companies had never paid any premiums to the Industrial Insurance Commission, and no demand had been made upon the companies for premiums under the compensation act.

[ocr errors]

After sus

Thereafter Jarvis instituted an action at common law in the superior court for King county, claiming damages by reason of the injury.

This action was afterwards removed to the Federal court upon the ground of diverse citizenship. The United States district court for the state of Washington, western division, sitting at Seattle, granted a motion for judgment in favor of the defendants, the corporations above mentioned. The reason for entering this judgment was because no demand had been made upon the navigation companies by the Industrial Insurance Commission for the state of Washington for the percentage of their pay rolls, as specified in the industrial act. As already stated, the present proceeding was instituted to compel the Industrial Insurance Commission to make a demand for such premiums. The case presents the question

« السابقةمتابعة »