Southern Pacific Co. v. Locke

S.D. New York

Southern Pacific Co. v. Locke

1 F. Supp. 992, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1907

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 4, 1932·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The deceased was an "employee” as defined in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 USCA §§ 901-950). He was regularly employed, classified, and paid as a longshoreman, and compensation is not to be denied because, at the time of his death, he was temporarily performing some incidental service other than that ordinarily performed by a longshoreman. I think any other ruling would make the administration of the act practically unworkable. I am clear, also, that liability for compensation exeludes liability under the Jones Act (section 33 [46 USCA § 688]), and the employer, therefore, cannot be called on to meet other claims by the widow.

There may be judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COXE, District Judge.

The deceased was an "employee” as defined in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 USCA §§ 901-950). He was regularly employed, classified, and paid as a longshoreman, and compensation is not to be denied because, at the time of his death, he was temporarily performing some incidental service other than that ordinarily performed by a longshoreman. I think any other ruling would make the administration of the act practically unworkable. I am clear, also, that liability for compensation exeludes liability under the Jones Act (section 33 [46 USCA § 688]), and the employer, therefore, cannot be called on to meet other claims by the widow.

There may be judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Locke, 1 F. Supp. 992, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1907 (S.D.N.Y. 1932).

Pincite

1 F. Supp. 992 (Southern Pacific Co. v. Locke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related