TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lawton v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.

Lawton v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 115 A. 886 (Pa. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 3, 1922
Docket
Nos. , No. 95
Judges
Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Sadler, Schaefer, Walling
Citations
115 A. 886272 Pa. 741922 Pa. LEXIS 775
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Workmen’s compensation — Death on houseboat — Jurisdiction— Admiralty — Navigable waters — Landing—Findings of compensation board — Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1. The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to a case where a workman is killed in the course of his employment in a houseboat on which he lives permanently, attached to a landing by ropes, and belonging to a corporation operating boats on navigable rivers, where it appears that the houseboat was not moved about, that the landing was its fixed location, and that it was considered part of the landing. 2. In such case, if the compensation board does not find that the houseboat was in the water, or between high and low watermark, there is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania law, and not under admiralty law.
Summary
Appeal, No. 95, Oct. T., 1921, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1921, No. 2660, affirming decision of Workmen’s Compensation Board on bearing de novo, in case of Ella Lawton v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., and iEtna Life Ins. Co., insurance carrier. Appeal from decision of Workmen’s Compensation Board on bearing de novo. Before Macearlane, J. Tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court states tbe facts. Decision affirmed. Defendants appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was above order, quoting it.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

We adopt the following excerpts from the opinion of the common pleas: “This is an appeal by defendant from an award, to the widow of Neil Lawton, made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the question involved is whether the case is one of admiralty jurisdiction. The defendant corporation operates steamboats on the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio Rivers, navigable waters under the acts of Congress. On December 26, 1919, Lawton was employed by defendant as superintendent of its landing, situated near the junction of these rivers......He was killed [during the course of his employment] on a houseboat owned by defendant. ......Lawton and his family lived on this houseboat. It was not found by the board that the houseboat had any other purpose or use; it was attached to the landing by ropes, and was not moved about; the landing was its fixed location, and it was considered part of the landing. The board states: We are therefore of the opinion, relying on the above, that this accident happened on land; the Workmen’s Compensation Board has jurisdiction.’......The board did not find as a fact that the houseboat was on land; it drew a conclusion of law from recited facts; nevertheless it did not find that [the houseboat] was in the water, or between high and low water-mark. They found sufficient to show jurisdiction and nothing to oust it.”

We agree with the court below that the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Pennsylvania applies.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 31925: 11939: 11940: 11942: 119242026peak 1924 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oliver v. Calmar S. S. Co33 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Pa. 1940)
  2. Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Boudreaux261 S.W. 137 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924)
  3. State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy148 N.E. 572 (Ohio 1925)
  4. United Fruit Co. v. Department of Labor & Industry25 A.2d 171 (Pa. 1942)
  5. O'Brien v. Calmar S. S. Corp.104 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1939)
  6. Meucci v. Gallatin Coal Co.123 A. 766 (Pa. 1924)

Most recent

  1. United Fruit Co. v. Department of Labor & Industry25 A.2d 171 (Pa. 1942)
  2. Oliver v. Calmar S. S. Co33 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Pa. 1940)
  3. O'Brien v. Calmar S. S. Corp.104 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1939)
  4. State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy148 N.E. 572 (Ohio 1925)
  5. Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Boudreaux261 S.W. 137 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924)
  6. Malky v. Kiskiminetas Valley Coal Co.123 A. 505 (Pa. 1924)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

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