TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company v. Kierejewski, Administratrix of Kierejewski

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479 (1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 9, 1923
Docket
No. 633
Judges
McReynolds
Citations
261 U.S. 47943 S. Ct. 41867 L. Ed. 7561923 U.S. LEXIS 2582

Opinion — McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question propounded upon this direct writ of error is whether the District Court rightly held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the libel by which defendant in error sought to recover damages for the death of her husband. 280 Fed. 125 .

Plaintiff in error, a corporation engaged in dredging, pile driving, etc,, maintains a yard at Buffalo, New York, and also keeps there scows and tugs. Leo Kierejewski, a master boiler maker, was employed by it to perform services as called upon. Acting under this employment, he began to make repairs upon a scow moored in the navigable waters of Buffalo River. He stood upon a scaffold resting upon a float alongside. One of the Company’s tugs came near, negligently agitated the water, swamped the float and precipitated him into the stream where he drowned.

While performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat, he came to his death upon navigable waters as the result of a tort there committed. The rules of the maritime law supplemented by the local death statute applied and fixed the rights and liabilities of the parties.

Western Fuel Co.

v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233 .

.

“ The general doctrine that in contr'act matters admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction and in tort matters upon the locality, has been so frequently asserted by this court that it must now be treated as settled.”

Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co.

v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 476 .

In the cause last cited neither Rohde’s general employment nor his activities had any direct relation to naviga *481 tion or commerce — the matter was purely local — and we were of opinion that application of the state statute, as between the parties, would not work material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the general maritime law or interfere with its proper harmony or uniformity.

Here the Circumstances are very different. Not only was the tort committed and effective on navigable waters, but the rights and liabilities of the parties are matters which have direct relation to navigation and commerce.

Southern Pacific Co.

v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205 ;

Carlisle Packing Co.

v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255 ;

State Industrial Commission of New York v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 82 cases

View all citing references →
1923: 31924: 61925: 71926: 81927: 41928: 81929: 21930: 21931: 11933: 21934: 11935: 21936: 41940: 11941: 21942: 11943: 11944: 21947: 11949: 11950: 11952: 21958: 21960: 11961: 11962: 11963: 31964: 11968: 11971: 11972: 11976: 11990: 11992: 21996: 11998: 12005: 12012: 119232026peak 1926 · 8

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perkins v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.299 S.W. 213 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1927)
  2. Span v. John Baizley Iron Works144 A. 753 (Pa. 1928)
  3. Torres v. City of New York177 A.D.2d 97 (1992)
  4. Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.370 U.S. 114 (1962)
  5. Doucette v. Vincent194 F.2d 834 (1st Cir. 1952)
  6. Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc.697 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012)

Most recent

  1. Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc.697 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012)
  2. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Little620 S.E.2d 773 (Va. 2005)
  3. Fcci Fund (Feisco) v. Cayce's Excavation726 So. 2d 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  4. Tompkins v. Port of New York Authority217 A.D.2d 269 (1996)
  5. Mizenko v. Electric Motor & Contracting Co.419 S.E.2d 637 (Va. 1992)
  6. Torres v. City of New York177 A.D.2d 97 (1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1916) 1,019
Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469 (1922) 303
Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233 (1921) 273
State Indus. Comm'n of NY v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263 (1922) 197
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 (1922) 166
Kierejewski v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 280 F. 125 (W.D.N.Y. 1921) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list