Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 261 U.S. 479, 43 S. Ct. 418, 67 L. Ed. 756, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2582, SCDB 1922-145

Decision Date: 4/9/1923

Docket Number: No. 633

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U.S. 479, 43 S. Ct. 418, 67 L. Ed. 756, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2582, SCDB 1922-145 (1923)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1923

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 78 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

U.S.13

Wash.6

N.Y. App. Div.4

4th Cir.3

5th Cir.3

3d Cir.2

Most recently cited by10

2012Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine & Trading Inc. 2d Cir.
2005Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Little VA
1998FCCI Fund v. Cayce's Excavation, Inc. Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1996Tompkins v. Port of New York Authority N.Y. App. Div.
1992Mizenko v. Electric Motor & Contracting Co. Va.
1992Torres v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
1990Rodrigue v. LeGros La.
1976Meredith v. A & P Boat Rentals, Inc. E.D. La.
1972Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland U.S.
1971Marsh v. Buckeye Steamship Co. N.D. Ohio

Cites 5 cases

Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen
Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia
Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger
State Industrial Commission v. Nordenholt Corp.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY v. KIEREJEWSKI, ADMINISTRATRIX OF KIEREJEWSKI.

Attorneys

Mr. George Clinton, Jr., with whom Mr. Ulysses S. Thomas was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error..
Mr. Irving W. Cole for defendant in error.

majority 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 navigation 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.