bls_0517_1930.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES \ BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T I S T I C S / .............. l l O e LABOR LAWS

OF T H E

UNITED

r -| 7

D i#

STATES SERIES

DECISIONS OF COURTS AND OPINIONS AFFECTING LABOR 1927-1928

JUNE, 1930

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1930

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-

•

-

Price 85 cents

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This bulletin was prepared by Charles F. Sharkey, of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

xn

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS Pag©

Introduction___________________________________________________________ Opinions of the Attorney General: Wages— “ watches ” — license— suspension__________________________ Decisions of courts: Aliens— seamen—admiralty (Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio)— New Y o r k .. Contract of employment: Advancements— seamen— wages (Jackson et al. v. The Archimedes)— New Y ork--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assignment of wages— release (Bryant v. Askin & Marine Co.)— South Carolina-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Authority to hire— additional service (Johnson v. Chicago & N. W. Py. Co.)— Minnesota_______________________________________________ Breach— changed conditions as affecting (Armstrong v. Cherry et al.)— California__________________________________________________ damages for breach (Hazen v. Cobb et al.)— Florida_____________ discharge— damages (Gary v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.)— Georgia_________ ___________________________________________ duress as affecting— seamen— wages (The Z R -3 )— Washington. engaging in similar business— restraint of trade (Emler v. Ferne)— Ohio_____ ________________ _________________________________ interference by third party (Owen et al. v. Westwood Lumber Co.)— Oregon______________________________________________ Compelling employees to trade in company store— restraint of trade (Deon v. Kirby Lumber Co. et al.)— Louisiana___________________ Continuation school— constitutionality (People v. Braunstein)— New York______________________________________________________ Discharge— rescission of contract (Diffley v. Jacobson Mfg. Co.)— New Jerseyseamen— wages (United States Steel Products Co. et al. v. Adams)— Louisiana_________________________________________ Engaging in similar business— trade secrets— (Deuerling v. City Baking Co.)— Maryland____________________ (Olschewski v. Hudson)— California___________________________ enforcement (Club Aluminum Co. v. Young et al.)— Massachu­ setts_______________________________________________________ information gained may be used in competitive employment (El Dorado Laundry Co. v. Ford)— Arkansas________________ injunction— (Excelsior Laundry Co. v. Diehl et al.)— New Mexico______ (Maas & Waldstein Co. v. Walker et al.)— New Jersey______ Enticing employee— construction of statute (Armstrong v. Bishop)— Mississippi______________________________________________________ Invention of employee— (Atlas Brick Co. v. North)— Texas____________________________ rights of employer (Magnetic Mfg. Co. et al. v. Dings Magnetic Separator Co.)— Wisconsin------------ -------- ------------------------------

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

▼

1 3 5

6 7 9

10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

VI

CONTENTS

Contract of employment— Continued. Liability of principal for acts of his agents— authority (Gasco v. Tracas)— Indiana_______________________________________________ “ Open port law” — interference— interstate commerce— constitution­ ality of statute (Ratcliff v. State)— Texas________________________ Profit-sharing plan— jurisdiction (Patton t;. Babson Statistical Organ­ ization (Inc.))— Massachusetts__________________________________ Qualifications of employee— constitutionality (Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State)— Arizona__________________________________________ Removal of railroad shops— unemployment— injunction (Lawrence et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.)— Oklahoma______________ Removing property of laborers— trespass (State v. Hunter)— Louis­ iana____________________________________________________________ Employers’ liability: Admiralty— contractor— employee— safe place to work (Wallace v. United States)— Washington____________________________________________ fellow service— safe place to work— seaman (Smith v. United States)— New York____________________________________ contributory negligence— jurisdiction (Colonna Shipyard (Inc.) v. Bland)— Virginia_________________________________________ Federal statute— fellow servants— longshoreman working on ship (Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sandin)— Washington_________ jurisdiction (Messel v. Foundation Co.)— Louisiana_____________ negligence— explosion— Federal statute— seaman (Petition of Clyde S. S. Co.)— New York_________________________________ res judicata— (Baltimore S. S. Co. et al. v. Phillips)— Maryland__ seamen— injury (Williams v. Oceanic Stevedoring Co.)— Texas__ Assumption of risk— abrogation of defenses— statute of limitations (Baltimore & Ohio S. W. R. Co. v. Carroll)— Indiana____________________________ car checker (Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Allen)— Missouri______ contributory negligence— death— negligence (Burgess v. North Carolina Electrical Power Co.)— North Carolina____________________________ negligence— safe place to work (Sanders v. Armour & Co. of Delaware et al.)— Missouri______________________________ damages— negligence— safe place to work (Woodley Petroleum Co. v. Willis)— Arkansas____________________________________ defective platform— fellow service— negligence (Sunderland v. Steanson et al.)— Kansas____________________________________ negligence— (Howe v. Michigan Central R. Co.)— Michigan-------------------(Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Steen)— Texas---------------------------(Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Lumpkins)— Virginia________ (Olson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.)— North Dakota-------------(Owen v. Elliott Hospital)— New Hampshire_______________ contributory negligence (Lancaster v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.)— Oklahoma_______________________________________ proximate cause (Pullman Co. v. Montimore)— Kansas__________ safe place and appliances (Duejack v. New Jersey Zinc Co. (Inc.))— New Jersey-------------------------------------------------------------

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page 33 34 35 30 38 39

40 41 42 45 46 47 48 49

50 53

54 55 57 58 58 60 61 63 65 66 68 68

CO N TEN TS

vn

Employers’ liability— Continued. Death— Page 69 (Hoffman v. State of Missouri)— Missouri______________________ dependents (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. WellsDickey Trust Co.)— Minnesota______________________________ 70 release (Mellon, Director General of Railroads, etc. v. Goodyear) Kansas____________________________________________________ 71 Death of brakeman— damages (Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Moser)— Texas----- -------------------------------------------------------------73 Death of conductor (Linstead v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.)— Kentucky-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------73 Death of fireman (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Whitcomb)— Indiana................... 74 Disfigurement (Odom v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co. in re Odom)— 75 Louisiana______________ _______ _____ ______ _____________________ Fellow servant— injury (Southern Ry. Co. v. Louise Taylor)— District of Columbia____________________________________________ 76 Injury— of brakeman— safety appliance— limitations (Grew v. Boston & Maine R .)— New Hampshire________________________________ 77 of engineer by mail sack crane (Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Leitch)— West Virginia_____________________________________ 78 of station agent (Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Aeby)— Arkansas. 79 of switchman— jurisdiction (Sullivan v. Wabash Ry. Co.)— Ohio— 80 Interstate commerce— jurisdiction— workmen's compensation (Miller v. Reading Co.)— Pennsylvania__________________________ ______ _ 81 Lump sum settlement— compromise (Musick v. Central Carbon Co. (Inc.) )— Louisiana_____________________________________________ 82 Minor unlawfully employed (Kucinski v. City Laundry & Cleaning Works)— Michigan--------------------------------------------------------------------84 Negligence— 84 (Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. Curtis)— Mississippi_____________ children unlawfully employed— damage (Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Stapleton)— Kentucky____ _______________________ 85 constitutionality— punitive damages (Louis Pizitz Dry Goods 87 Co. (Inc.) v. Yeldell)— Alabama___________________________ death of car inspector (Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones)— T exas________ _____ ________ _______ _______________________ 87 death of “ water b o y ” (Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Russo) — Indiana__________________________________________________ 88 employee killed by special officer (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Southwell)— North Carolina___________________ ___________89 evidence (Gulf, Mobile & Northern R. Co. v. Wells)— Mississippi. 90 injury (Saunders v. Boston & Maine R .)— New Hampshire____ 91 injury of switchman— res ipsa loquitur (Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hough)— Indiana________________________________________ 92 messenger boy— workmen's compensation (Ray v. Western Union Telegraph Co.)— Massachusetts______________________ 93 mine— status of owner (Glover's Administrator v. James)— Kentucky_______ _______________ ___________________________ 94 scope of employment— damage (Barry v. Boston & Maine R.) — New York_______________________________________________ 95 workmen's compensation acts (Lockhart v. Southern Pacific Co.) 96 — California_______________________________________ ______

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

V III

CO NTENTS

Employers’ liability— Continued. Poison— death— duty of employer to warn employee (Baumgartner v. Pennsylvania R. Co.)— Pennsylvania__________________________ Railroad policeman (Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co. v. Scales)— New York_____________________________________________ Seamen— negligence— care and cure (United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. et al. v. Greenwald)— New Y ork_________ State police acting as strike guard— status of employees (Hudson v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas)— Texas_______________________ Stevedore— fellow servant— independent contractor— negligence— seamen (Buzynski v. Luckenbach S. S. Co. (Inc.) et al.)— Texas____ negligence of fellow servant— contractor (Bojarski v. M. F. Howlett (Inc.) )— Pennsylvania_____________________________ Unlawful employment— construction of statute— child labor (Perry v. Western Union Telegraph C o . T e n n e s s e e ____________________ Volunteer employee— emergency (Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Hays)— Arkansas____________________________________ Employment offices— constitutionality of law as to fee fixing (Ribnik v. McBride)— New Jersey____________________________________________ Employment service— monopoly— interference with interstate commerce — shipping of seamen— antitrust act (Anderson v. Shipowners'Associa­ tion of the Pacific Coast)— California________________________________ Examination, licensing, etc., of occupations: Barbers— construction of statute (State v. Leftwich)— Washington..Cosmeticians— cosmetic therapy law— constitutionality (Baker et al. v. Daly et al.)— Oregon__________________________________________ Detective— license— impairment of contract (Andrews et al. v. La Crosse Refrigerator Corp. et al.)—Wisconsin_____________________ Employment agency— discretionary powers (Lyons v. Gram, com­ missioner of labor statistics, etc.)— Oregon_______________________ Land surveyor— constitutionality— injunction (Doe v. Jones et al.) — Illinois_______________________________________________________ Pharmacist— constitutionality of statute (Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge)— Pennsylvania_______________________________________ Hours of service: Closing time of barber shops— constitutionality (Chaires v. City of Atlanta)— Georgia______________________________________________ Sunday labor (Spann v. Gaither, commissioner of police)— Maryland. _ Labor organizations: Arbitration agreement— award— “ agreeing to disagree’’ (Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen)— Illinois_______________________________ Collective bargaining— contempt— injunction (Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks, etc. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. et al.)— Texas_______ Conspiracy— boycott— inj unction— (Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of West­ chester County et al.)— New York______________________ (A. T. Stearns Lumber Co. v. Howlett et al.)— Massachu­ setts___________________________________________________ expulsion of member (Sweetman v. Barrows et al.)— Massachu­ setts________________________________________________________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page 97 99 100 101

103 104 105 106 107

109 112 113 114 115 117 118

120 121

122 125

127 128 130

CO N TEN TS

Labor organizations— Continued. Conspiracy— Continued. interference with employment— injunction (Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America)— District of Columbia____________________________ open shop (Nolan v. Farmington Shoe Mfg. Co.)— Massachusetts, “ peaceful” picketing— injunction (Exchange Bakery & Restau­ rant (Inc.) v. Rifkin et al.)— New York_____________________ Criminal syndicalism— constitutionality— (Fiske v. State of Kansas)— Kansas___________________________ (Whitney v. People of State of California)— California_________ instruction of court (Burns v. United States)— California_______ Injunctions— (Bittner et al. v. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co.)— West Virginia____________________________________________________ boycott— (Columbus Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Pittsburgh Build­ ing Trades Council et al.)— Pennsylvania_______________ monopoly— interstate commerce (Aeolian Co. et al. v. Fischer et al.)— New York-------------- ----------- -----------------------------contempt— (Day v. United States)— Indiana__________________________ Clayton Act (Armstrong et al. v. United States)— Indiana. _ internal government (International Hod Carriers’ Local No. 426 v. International Local No. 502, etc.)— New Jersey___________ lockout— (McGrath v. Norman et al.)— New York__________________ (Moran v. Lasette et al.)— New York_____________________ membership (McNichols et al. v. International Typographical Union et al.)— Indiana_____________________________________ membership rights (International Union of Steam and Operating Engineers et al. v. Owens)— Ohio____________________________ sympathetic strike (Lundoff-Bicknell Co. v. Smith et al.)— Ohio. Picketing— boycott— injunction (S. A. Clark Lunch Co. v. Cleveland Waiters and Beverage Dispensers1 Local 106 et al.)— O hio.:._________ contempt— injunction— anti-injunction statute (Ossey et al. v. Retail Clerks7 Union et al.)— Illinois________________________ injunction— (L. Daitch & Co. (Inc.) v. Retail Grocery and Dairy Clerks* Union of Greater New York et al.)— New York_________ (Manker v. Bakers’ , etc., Union et al.)— New Y ork________ (Sarros et al. v. Nouris et al.)— Delaware__________________ Refusal to work on nonunion products— conspiracy— injunction (Bedford Cut Stone Co. et al. v. Journeyman Stone Cutters’ Asso­ ciation of North America et al.)— Indiana_______________________ Rights of seniority— railroads (Crisler v. Crum et al.)— Nebraska Rules— seniority rights— employment contract (West v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. et al.)— West Virginia___________________________ Strike— breach of contract— injunction (Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Green et al.)— New York--------------------------------------------------

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IX

Page

132 135 136 138 139 140

140

144 144 146 147 149 149 151 152 153 155

158 159

160 161 161

163 164 165

166

X

CO NTENTS

Labor organizations— Continued. Strike— Continued, conspiracy— injunction— (Goldman v. Cohen et al.)— New York_______________ (United Cloak and Suit Designers’ Mutual Aid Asso­ ciation of America v. Sigman et al.)— New York____ restraint of trade (International Organization, United Mine Workers of America et al. v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Co. et al.)— West Virginia_________________ contempt— conspiracy— injunction (State ex rel Continental Coal Co. v. Bittner)— West Virginia______________________________ expulsion— damages (Mullen v. Seegers)— Missouri_____________ mass picketing— disorderly conduct (People v. Friedman et al.)— New York__________________________________________________ picketing— unlawful assembly (State v. Butterworth et al.)— New Jersey_____ __________________________ _____ ___________ strike insurance— construction of contract (Bower & Kaufman v. Bothwell et al.)— Maryland_________________________________ unlawful arrest (United States v. Adams)— Colorado___________ Trade agreement— right of third party to sue (H. Blum & Co. v. Landau)— Ohio__ street railway (Des*Moines City Ry. Co. v. Amalgamated Ass’ n of Street Ry. Employees, §tc., et al.)— Iowa_________________ Pensions: Group insurance— coverage— deceased employee not discharged (Thompson v. Pacific Mills et al.)— South Carolina_______________ Vested right (Cowles et al. v. Morris & Co. et al.)— Illinois_________ Safety laws: Employees on buildings— constitutionality of law (Jones, Chief Safety Inspector v. Russell)— Kentucky_________________________________ Requirement of fans— mines— constitutionality (Dairymple v. Sevcik)— Colorado__________________________________________________ Wages: Hiring by month— discharge (Ross v. Fair et al.)— Mississippi______ Minimum wage— intermittent service (Sparks v. Moritz)— Washington__________ wage fixing— illegal— municipality (Wilson et al. v. City of Atlanta)— Georgia__________________________________________ Nonpayment of— emergency employee— construction of statute (Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Russell)— Arkansas______________ Prevailing rate of wages in locality— constitutionality of statute— public works— (Campbell v. City of New York)— New York______ Profit-sharing— (Friedle v. First National Bank of the City of N. Y. et al.)— New Y ork_______________________________________________________ bonus (George A. Fuller Co. v. Brown)— North Carolina______ Vested rights (Burgess v. First National Bank et al.)— New Y ork. Seamen— injury— care and cure (Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peter­ son)— Washington______________________________________________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page 168 170

171 173 174 175 175 176 177 178 180

181 182

183 184 185 186 186 187 188

189 190 193 194

CO NTENTS

Workmen’s compensation: Accident— burns— doing of act without permission (Ziolkowski v. American Radiator Co. et al.)— New York________________________ wound (Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co. v. Brunson et al.)— Oregon_______________________________ disease— brain tumor (McCarthy v. General Electric Co.)— Penn­ sylvania_______________________________________________ cancer (Winchester Milling Corporation v. Sencindiver)— Virginia_______________________________________________ typhoid fever (John Rissman & Son v. Industrial Commis­ sion et al.)— Illinois____________________________________ typhoid fever—proximate cause (Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Industrial Accident Commission of Calif, et al.)— California______________________________________________ employees injured by fire— sleeping quarters (Guiliano v. Daniel O’ Connell’s Sons)— Connecticut. ____________________________ exposure— pneumonia— city fireman (Costly v. City of Eveleth)— Minnesota------ -------------------------------------------------------------------intoxication as cause— presumption (Shearer et al. v. Niagara Falls Power Co.)— New York_______________________________ loss of sight (Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois_____________________________________________________ occupational disease— automobile sander (Maxwell Motor Corporation v. Winter)— Ohio___________________________________________________ benzol poisoning (Seattle Can Co. v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington et al.)— Washington_______ caisson worker (Beaty et al. v. Foundation Co. et al.)— Michigan______________________________________________ cement handling (Kosik v. Manchester Construction Co. et al.)— Connecticut____________________________________ grinder— inhaling foreign matter (Cishowski v. Clayton Manu­ facturing Co. et al.)— Connecticut__________________ pneumoconiosis (Romaniec v. Collins Co. et al.)— Connecticut_______________________________________ lead poisoning (Kostsier v. Cargill Co.)— Michigan________ leather poisoning (Dillingham’s Case)— Maine------------------mercury p o i s o n i n g — constitutionality— jurisdiction— (A. Fishman Hat Co. (Inc.) v. Rosen et al.)— New Jersey____ phosphorus poisoning (Turner v. Virginia Fireworks Co. et al.)— Virginia________________________________________ potters’ consumption (Ewers v. Buckeye Clay Pot Co.)— Ohio________________ ______ ___________________________ sulphuric acid poisoning— (Gilliam v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation)— Oklahoma_________________________________________ tuberculosis (Depre v. Pacific Coast Forge Co.)— Wash­ ington_____________________________________________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

XI

Page 196 197

198 199 200

201 201 203 203 204

205 207 209 210

211 212 213 214 215 216 217

218 219

xn

CO NTENTS

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Accident— Continued. occupational disease— Continued. wheat dust— tuberculosis (A. D. Thomson & Co. v Jepson et al.)— Wisconsin______________________________________ wood alcohol poisoning (Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co.)— New Jersey____________________________________________ recurrence of injury (Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Weaver)— Colorado_______________________________________ _ violation of statute (Silvers Case)— Massachusetts____________ Additional award— total disability (Young v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al.)— Colorado______________________________________ Admiralty— jurisdiction— award (Balestrere v. Industrial Accident Commission et al.)— California______________________________________________ exclusiveness of remedy (Baker Towboat Co. v. Langner)— Alabama_______________________________________________ Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act— (Perry v. United States Employees’ Compensation Com­ mission et al.)— California_________________________ constitutionality (Joseph Chernik, petitioner v. Clyde S. S. Co.)— New York_____________________________ fisherman (Tyler v. Industrial Commission)— Ohio_________ proximate cause (T. Smith & Son (Inc.) v. Taylor)— Loui­ siana__________________________________________________ seaman (Alaska Packers’ Association v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California____________ stevedore (Resigno v. F. Jarka Co. (Inc.) et al.)— New Yorkwaiver (Fitzgerald v. Harbor Lighterage Co.)— New York__ Agreement to assign compensation— hotel employee (Dallas Hotel Co. v. Buffington)— Texas_______________________________________ Alien beneficiaries— insurance— assignment (Bacchaieff v. Depart­ ment of Labor and Industries of Washington)— Washington______ Award— agreement— vested rights— loss of eye (Haugse v. Sommers Bros. Mfg. Co. et al.)— Idaho------------------------------------- -------- ---------change of conditions— insurance (Savannah Lumber Co. v. Burch)— Georgia____________ ______ _______ ________________ death following disability— employee (Commercial Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Utah et al.)— Utah________ _______ ________ ______________________________ disability— evidence (Cameron Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois_____________________________________________ election— settlement (Beekman v. W. A. Brodie (Inc.) et al.)— New York__________________________________________________ employment status (Kutil v. Floyd Valley Mfg. Co. et al.)— Iowa_______________________________________________________ lump sum—powers, etc., of commission (Utah-Idaho Central R. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Utah)— Utah______ penalty— noncompliance (State, for benefit of Bredwell et al. v. Hershner et al.)— Ohio_____________ ________ ___ . . . _____ . . .

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Pag* 220 221 223 224 224

225 226

227 228 229 231 232 232 234 235 236

238 239

241 242 243 244 246 247

CO NTENTS

Workmen's compensation— Continued. Award— Continued. permanent partial disability— (George A. Fuller Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.);— Illinois_________________________________________________ construction of statute (Ketchikan Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Walker)— Alaska_______________________________________ release (Allen v. Kansas City Fiber Box Co.)— Kansas_____ permanent total disability— loss of sight (Moore v. Western Coal & Mining Co.)— Kansas____________________________________ powers, etc., of commission (Silvey v. Panhandle Coal Co. No. 5)— Indiana____________________________________________________ proximate cause— evidence (Unkovich et al. v. Interstate Iron Co.)— Minnesota___________________________________________ review— attorney’s fees (Lindstrom v. Amherst Mining Co. et al.)— Minnesota_____________________________________________ change of condition (Gvozdic v. Inland Steel Co.)— Indiana. construction of statute (Slatmeyer v. Industrial Commis­ sion)— Ohio____________________________________________ disfigurement (Comar Oil Co. et al. v. Sibley et al.)— Okla­ homa__________________________________________________ insurance (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commis­ sion et al.)— Wisconsin_________________________________ intentional and willful acts (Western Clay & Metal Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Utah et al.)— Utah________ joint employment (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California______________________________________________ jurisdiction (Weighton et al. v. Austin Co. et al.)— New Y ork_______________________________ _____ _____________ powers, etc., of commissions— jurisdiction (Northwestern Casualty & Surety Co. v. Doud et al.)— Wisconsin______ temporary disability (Eureka Coal Co. et al. v. Melcho)— Indiana____________________________________________________ vested right— procedure (Greenwood et al. v. Luby et al.)— Connecticut. _ surviving beneficiaries (Bry-Block Mercantile Co. v. Car­ son)— Tennessee_______________________________________ wages from profits (Griglioni v. Hope Coal Co.)— Kansas______ Basis of award— “ average weekly wage” (Merrill v. State Military Department)— Maryland__________ ._______________________________________ dependency— review (Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acci­ dent Commission et al.)— California_________________________ Casual employment— injury in the course of employment (York Junction Transfer & Storage Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Com­ mission of California et al.)— California__________________________ Contractor— casual employment (Thompson v. Wagner)— New Jersey_______ contract of employment— employee (Henry v. Mondillo)— Rhode Island______ _______ ____ _____ _____________________________ damages (Montgomery v. Board of Commissioners of Erie County)— Ohio..................... ............................................................

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

X III

p age 248 249 250 251 252 253

253 254 256 258 259 260

261 263 264 265 266 268 269

270 271

272 274 275 276

X IV

CO NTENTS

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Contractor— Continued. death— Page (Clark v. Monarch Engineering Co.)— New Y ork_______ 277 injury (Purkable et al. v. Greenland Oil Co.)— Kansas_____ 279 employee— (Medford Lumber Co. et al. v. Mahner et al.)— W isconsin.. 280 (Rouse v. Town of Bird Island)— Minnesota______________ 281 casual employment (Pacific Employers' Insurance Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations et al.)— California.. 283 construction of statute (American Radiator Co. et al. v. Franzen et al.)— Colorado______________________________ 284 death (Robson v. Martin et al.)— Pennsylvania____________ 285 scope of employment (Fieber & Reilly v. Entwistle)— Indiana________________________________________________ 286 temporary total disability (Moody v. Industrial Accident 287 Commission et al.)— California_________________________ employment status (Flaharty v. Trout et al.)— Pennsylvania___ 289 evidence— employer (New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California_______ 290 lessor— injury— death (Wisinger v. White Oil Corporation)— Texas______________________________________________________ 292 loss of eye (Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Baking Co.)— Minnesota___ 293 repairing sidewalk for city (Morgannelli’s Estate v. City of Derby et al.)— Connecticut________________________________________ 294 Convict labor— (California Highway Commission, Department of Engineering v. Industrial Accident Commission et al.)— California__________ 295 employee not entitled to compensation (Lawson v. Travelers' Insurance Co.)— Georgia____________________________________ 296 Coverage— agricultural workers— casual employment (Hoshiko v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al.)— Colorado__________________ 297 baseball player— jurisdiction (Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York et al. v. Huhn, and Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York et al. v. Reiger)— Georgia_______ 298 casual employment— (Sink v. Pharaoh)— Minnesota____________________________ 301 volunteer (Johnson v. City of Albia)— Iowa_______________ 302 city fireman— third party— election (Behr v. Soth)— Minnesota. 303 election— legal liability— usual course of business (Paradis' Case)— Maine---------------------------------------------------------------------304 employment status— “ building w ork" (Harrel v. Quiring)— Kansas_____________________________________________________ 305 extrahazardous employment— (Edwards v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash­ ington)— Washington___________________________________ 307 employee oiling street car tracks (Murphy et ux. v. Schwartz et al.)— Washington____________________________________ 308 farmer (Gabel v. Industrial Accident Commission)— California_ 309 game warden— contract of employment (State Conservation Department v. Nattkemper)— Indiana_________________ ____ 310

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CO NTENTS

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Coverage— Continued. hazardous employment— (Estes v. State Industrial Accident Commission)— O regon.. ferryboat captain (San Francisco & Sacramento Ry. Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California______________________________________ public employment (Moore v. Industrial Accident Fund)— Montana______________________________________________ seasonal occupation (Froehly v. T. M. Harton Co. et al.)— Penn­ sylvania____________________ ______________________________ tractor driver— insurance— election (Heal et al. v. Adams et a l.)— Wisconsin___________________________________________ Dependency— (Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation v. Industrial Commis­ sion of Arizona)— Arizona___________________________________ condition at time of death (London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California)— California__ contributions to family support (Bartkey v. Sanitary Farm Dairies et al.)— Minnesota__________________________________ widow— anticipation of dependency (Hamer-Paskins Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois______________________ wife separated from husband (Thurman v. Union Indemnity Co.)— Massachusetts_______________________________________ Dependent— claims— death following disability (Thorpe v. Depart­ ment of Labor and Industries of Washington)— Washington______ Employee— casual employment— independent contractor (Chamberlain v< Central Vermont Ry. Co.)— Vermont____________________________________ usual course of business (Oilmen’s Reciprocal Association v. Gilleland)— Texas______________________________________ implied contract of hire (School District No. 4, Town of Sigel v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Wisconsin___________________ independent contractor— award (Dutcher v. Victoria Paper Mills et al.)— New Y ork-----------------------------------------------------when relationship begins and ends (Brewer v. Department of Labor and Industries)— Washington________________________ Employers’ liability— contractor— employee (Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Com­ mission of Utah et al.)— Utah______________________________ duty of employer to instruct (Bilodeau v. Gale Bros. (Inc.))— New Hampshire____________________________________________ independent contractor (Reynolds v. Addison Miller Co. et al.)— W ashington.------------ ---------------------------------------------------------injury arising out of employment (Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. et al.)— Minnesota_________________________________________ interstate commerce— dependency (Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al.)— Illinois____________ Extraterritoriality— alien labor (Saunders’ Case)— Maine__________________________ evidence (Bradtmiller v. Liquid Carbonic Co. et al.)— Minnesota. jurisdiction— contract for service outside State (Watts v. Long)— Nebraska____________________ _____________________________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

XV

Page 311

312 313 314 315

316 317 318 319 320 321

322 323 325 326 327

328 330 331 332 334 336 337 338

XVI

CONTENTS

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Injury— aggravation— disease— death (Smith v. Mason Bros. Co. et al.)— Minnesota_________________________________________________ incidental employment— evidence (Zurich Accident & Liability Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al.)— Wisconsin__________________________________________________ insanity— suicide— proximate result (Delinousha et al. v. Na­ tional Biscuit Co.)— New York_____________________________ negligence— right to recover in addition to compensation (Arnold v. Ohio Gas & Electric Co.)— Ohio__________________________ notice— loss of use of member— review (Beech v. Keicher et al.)— Tennessee__________________________________________________ release— beneficiary (Texas E m p loyed Insurance Association v. Morgan et al.)— Texas--------------------------------------------------------Injury arising out of employment— act of God— earthquake (Enterprise Dairy Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California________ causal connection— going to and from work (Bountiful Brick Co. et al. v. Giles et al.)— Utah__________________________________ hospital employee (Yitas v. Grace Hospital Society)— Connecti­ cut-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------minor— dependents (Kovacs v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore et al.)— Connecticut------- ----------------------------------------------------presumption (Karlson v. Rosenfeld)— I^ew Jersey______________ suicide— causal connection (Wilder v. Russell Library Co.)— Connecticut________________________________________________ vibrations in ear of telephone operator (Brown v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau)— North Dakota_________ Injury arising out of and in the course of employment— (Pacific Fruit Express Co. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona et al.)— Arizona____________________________________________ accidental discharge of officer’s revolver (Employers1 Liability Assurance Corporation v. Henderson)— Georgia___- __________ act of God— earthquake (London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission)— California______________________ employee killed by lightning (Netherton v. Lightning Deliv­ ery Co. et al.)— Arizona________________________________ farm hand killed by lightning (Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission)— Colorado_____________________ tornado (Slanina v. Industrial Commission of Ohio)— Ohio » asphyxiation— departure— evidence (Union Indemnity Co. v. Malley et al.)— Texas_______________________________________ assault (Field v. Charmette Knitted Fabric Co.)— New Y ork___ causal connection— (Sellers v. Reice Construction Co.)— Kansas______________ (Stocker v. Southfield Co. et al.)— Michigan______________ intoxication— evidence (Mausert v. Albany Builders’ Supply Co. et al.)— New York_________________________________ loss of eye (Ryan v. State Industrial Commission et al.)— Oklahoma______________________________________________ railroad ticket agent— evidence (Phillips v. Kansas City, L. & W. Ry. Co.)— Kansas........................................................

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page 340

340 342 343 344 345

347 348 349 351 352 353 355

355 357

357 358 359 359 360 362 362 363 365 366 367

CO NTENTS

X V II

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment— Continued. Page department store employee— personal errand (Industrial Com­ mission of Ohio v. Ahern)— Ohio____________________________ 369 disobedience of orders— (Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Cornelius)— Colorado______________________________________________ 370 (Shoffler v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.)— Pennsylvania_______ 370 (State ex rel Storm v. Hought et al.)— North Dakota______ 372 (Swardleck’s Case)— Massachusetts_______________________ 373 negligence (Corrina v. De Barbieri et al.)— New York_____ 374 employee burned to death (Giliotti v. Hoffman Catering Co.)— 375 New Y o r k ...______________________________________________ employee shot by passenger (Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. et al.)— Minnesota______ •_____________________________________ 376 employee shot during altercation (Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron 377 Co. v. Harris)— Alabama___________________________________ evidence— powers, etc., of commission (American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. et al. v. Hardy)— Georgia________________ 378 res gestae (Selz-Schwab & Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois___________________________________________ 379 fall of employee in hurrying (Mannix’s Case)— M a s s a c h u s e t t s 380 freezing—proximate cause (Gibbons v. United Electric Railways Co.)— Rhode Island_____________________________ ___________ 381 going to and from work— (Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Utah______________________________ 381 (Ferreri’s Case)— Maine__________________________________ 383 (Jett et al. v. Turner)— Alabama__________________________ 384 (Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Bush)— Georgia__________ 385 (Simonson v. Knight et al.)— Minnesota___________________ 386 (St. Louis & O ’ Fallon Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois___________________________________________ 387 causal connection— (Langenheim v. Industrial Commission of Ohio)— Ohio. 388 notice (Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Nissen’s Estate)— Colorado________________________ 389 employment contract (Wabnec v. Clemons Logging Co.)— Washington____________________________________________ 390 “ plant” (Wade v. Harris et al.)— Washington____________ 391 riding bicycle on public highway (Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Swanson et al.)— Wisconsin____________________________ 392 special errand (State Compensation Insurance Fund v. In­ dustrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— Cali­ fornia____ _____________________________________________ 393 golf club attendant (Colarullo’s Case)— Massachusetts________ 394 heart disease— policeman— evidence (Reardon v. City of Austin 395 et al.)— Minnesota_________________________________________ heart failure— (Guay v. Brown Co.)— New Hampshire___________________ 396 preexisting condition (Knock et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California____________ 397 103151°—30------2

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

X V III

CONTENTS

Workmen’s compensation— Continued. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment— Continued. heat prostration (King v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co.)— Tennessee— helper (Rachels v. Pepoon)— New Jersey---------------------------------hernia— (O’Brien v. Wise & Upson Co. (Inc.) et al.)— Connecticut__ death following operation— proximate cause (Valeri v. Vil­ lage of Hibbing)— Minnesota___________________________ evidence—powers, etc., of commissions (Livingston v. Indus­ trial Commission of Utah et al.)— Utah-------------------------limitations (Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. W. A. Hover & Co. et al.)— Colorado___________________ waiver (Otto v. Chapin et al.)— M ich igan -._______________ hospital nurse (Favorite v. Kalamazoo State Hospital et al.)— Michigan__________________________________________________ hotel employee (Farwell’s Case)— Maine---------------------------------inference (Steffes v. Ford Motor Co.)— Michigan_______________ intentional and willful acts (Consolidation Coal Co. v. Ratliff et ux.)— Kentucky_________________________________________ janitor (Orcutt v. Trustees of Wesley Methodist Episcopal Church)— Minnesota_______________________________________ overexertion— (Georgia Casualty Co. v. Mixner et al.)— Texas___________ (Skroki v. Crucible Steel Co. of America)— Pennsylvania. _ parties— construction of statute (Department of Game and In­ land Fisheries et al. v. Joyce et al.)— Virginia________________ poisoning— (Krause v. Swart wood et al.)— Minnesota_________________ evidence (Manley et al. v. Harvey Lumber Co. et al.)— Minnesota_____________________________________________ preexisting condition— (Standard Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah et al.)— Utah_____________________ ____________________ arthritis (Warlop v. Western Coal & Mining Co.)— Kansas__ causal connection (Singlaub v. Industrial Accident Commis­ sion of California et al.)— California____________________ public officer (Los Angeles County et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al.)— California_________________ salesman demonstrating automobile (Engsell v. Northern Motor Co. et al.)— Minnesota_____________________________________ shooting— (Coco v. Wilbur)— New Jersey____________________________ (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peek)— Georgia_______________ transportation of employee— death following disability (Little­ field’s Case)— Maine________________________________________ watchman— (Ryerson v. A. E. Bounty Co. et al.)— Connecticut______ (Taylor’s Case)— Maine__________________________________ wife competent to testify (McDonnell v. Swift & Co.)— Kansas. willful acts (Mallory S. S. Co. v. Higgins)— Alabama___________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page 398 399 400 402 403 405 406 407 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 417 418

419 420 422 424 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433

CONTENTS

Workmen's compensation— Continued. Injury in course of employment— causal connection— disease (Cockrell v. Industrial Commission et al.)— Illinois_____________________________________________ company policeman (Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Ball et al.)— Kentucky__________________________________________________ horseplay (Badger Furniture Co. et al. v. Champeau et al.)— Wisconsin__________________________________________________ smallpox— inference (Vilter Mfg. Co. et al. v. Jahncke et al.)— Wisconsin__________________________________________________ Lump sum award— powers, etc., of commissions (Kaylor v. Callahan Zinc-Lead Co.)— Idaho_________________________________________ Medical and surgical aid— amputation of leg (Lanham v. Himyar Coal Corporation)— Kentucky__________________________________________________ autopsy— causal connection (Taylor’s Case)— Maine___________ burns from smoking— causal connection (Fischer v. R. Hoe & Co. (Inc.) et al.)— New York____________ __________________ causal connection— dependency (Atamian’s Case)— M assachu­ setts_______________________________________________________ contract with doctor— notice (Henry v. American Enamel Co.)— Rhode Island______________________________________________ permanent total disability (Eberle v. Miller)— Minnesota______ preexisting condition (Pfeiffer v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau)— North Dakota_____________________ refusing medical, etc., treatment (Consolidated Coal Co. v. Crislip et al.)— Kentucky___________________________________ Minor illegally employed— (Humphries v. Boxley Bros. Co.)— Virginia____________________ action for damages (Burk v. Montana Power Co.)— Montana__ Workmen’s compensation insurance— Classification of rates (State ex rel. Reaugh Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio)— Ohio___________________________ Damages (Cleveland Commercial Auto Body Co. v. Frank)— O h io.. Election— damages (Diamond v. Cleary)— Indiana_________________ State fund— employers’ solvency (State ex rel. Williams v. Industrial Commission and State ex rel. Rudd v. Industrial Commission)— Ohio________________________ ________ __________________________ Cumulative index and list of cases______________________________________

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

X IX

Page 434 435 437 438 439

440 440 442 442 444 445 447 449 450 451

453 454 455

457 459

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

BULLETIN O F TH E

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS N o.

517

W A SH IN G T O N

JUNE,

1930

DECISIONS OF THE COURTS AND OPINIONS AFFECTING LABOR

1927, 1928

Introduction T h is b u l l e t i n is the fourteenth in a series of publications by the Bureau of Labor Statistics presenting decisions of courts and opin­ ions on questions affecting labor. Prior to the year 1912 articles on decisions were published regularly in the bimonthly bulletins of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its predecessors as a part of that publication. Beginning with the year 1912, annual bulletins have been published with the exception of the volumes for the years 1919, 1920, 1923, 1924, and the present bulletin, which covers a 2-year period, The separate bulletins published since 1912 are numbered 112, 152, 169,189, 224, 246, 258, 290, 309, 344, 391, 417, and 444. The policy adopted in the publication of this bulletin and the pre­ ceding ones has been to select and produce decisions of courts having a special interest and importance to labor in general and to those students interested in the relations of employer and employee. No attempt, however, has been made to present a complete list of cases of the classes used, but rather to present illustrative ones embodying the principles under consideration. The cases have been selected principally from the State courts of last resort and the Federal courts (including the United States Su­ preme Court). However, in some instances cases have been selected from courts with appellate jurisdiction, as in New York, Indiana, and Texas. The National Keporter System, published by the West Publishing Co., of St. Paul, Minn., has been the chief source for the material used, although the Washington Law Eeporter and the advance sheets of the opinions of the Attorney General for the Department of Jus­ tice have also beeia reviewed and examined*

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1

2

DECISIONS OF T H E COURTS AND OPINIO NS

As in the preceding bulletins, cases on the subject of workmen’s compensation comprise the large part of the decisions, while cases on employers5 liability may be ranked next in number, with cases on labor organizations, contracts of employment, hours of service, and wages completing the subject matter. The facts in each case have been set forth briefly by the editor and abridged for the most part, and important opinions and conclusions by the court are quoted, though occasionally the findings of the court are stated in a briefer form by the editor without quotations. The decisions used appeared in the publications named below dur­ ing the two years, 1927 and 1928. Opinions of the Attorney General, volume 45, pages, 168-506. Federal Reporter, volume 15 (2d), page 609, to volume 28 (2d), page 1023. Supreme Court Reporter, volume 47, page 218, to volume 49, page 83. Atlantic Reporter, volume 135, page 241, to volume 143, page 672. New York Supplement, volume 218, page 401, to volume 231, page 488. Northeastern Reporter, volume 154, page 193, to volume 163, page 768. Northwestern Reporter, volume 211, page 1, to volume 222, page 144. Pacific Reporter, volume 250, page 993, to volume 271, page 1119. Southeastern Reporter, volume 135, page 769, to volume 145, page 608. Southern Reporter, volume 110, page 369, to volume 118, page 768. Southwestern Reporter, volume 288, page 1, to volume 10 (2d), page 872. Washington Law Reporter, volumes 55 and 56.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Opinions o f the A ttorn ey General W a g e s —“ W a t c h e s ” —L i c e n s e —S u s p e n s i o n .—Opinions of Attor­ ney General, 'bolvme 35, page 197 (March 17,1927).—The Secretary of Commerce requested an opinion as to whether section 4450 of the Revised Statutes of the United States authorized local boards of inspectors to revoke or suspend the license of a master of a vessel for failure to comply with the provisions of the seamen’s act relating to the division of watches while at sea. The section referred to provides that local boards of inspectors shall investigate all acts of incompetency or misconduct committed by any licensed officer while acting under the authority of his license, and power is given to the local boards to suspend or revoke any license if the board is satisfied that such officer is incompetent or is guilty of misbehavior or is negligent. Section 2 of the seamen’s act (38 Stat. 1164, c. 153) provides in part:

That in all merchant vessels of the United States of more than 100 tons gross, excepting those navigating rivers, harbors, bays, or sounds exclusively, the sailors shall, while at sea, be divided into at least two, and the firemen, oilers, and water tenders into at least three watches, which shall be kept on duty successively for the performance of ordinary work incident to the sailing and management of the vessel. The Attorney General in his opinion cited a Supreme Court case (O’Hara v. Luckenback Steamship Co., 269 U. S. 364) in which it was ruled that the primary purpose of section 2 of the seamen’s act was to insure the safety of the vessel and those on board. (For opinion of court see B. L. S. Bui. No. 444, p. 120.) The failure of the master to comply with the provisions of section 2 may be regarded, the Attorney General pointed out, as an act of omission on the part of the master and may amount to “ misbehavior or negligence or be said to have endangered life.” I am, therefore, of the opinion that local boards of inspectors, under section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, have authority to revoke or suspend the license of the master of a vessel for failure to comply with section 2 of the seamen’s act relating to the division of watches while at sea.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

4

O PIN IO N S OF T H E A TTO RN EY GENERAL

The Attorney General, in an opinion dated August 9, 1927, held that an act (sec. 4583, R. S.) relating to the payment of an extra month’s wages to seamen discharged in a foreign country because “ the voyage is continued contrary to agreement55is not to be applied by consuls in cases of complaint by seamen for violation of section 2 of the seamen’s act.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

[Quoted matter in the decisions of cases reported in this bulletin have been punctuated in accordance with the rules for punctuation laid down by the Government Printing Office for Government publications and does not follow, in all cases, the reported decisions.]

D ecisions o f the Courts Aliens—Seamen—Admiralty—Plamals v. The “ Pinar Del Rio Supreme Court of the United States (May lip, 1928), 48 Supreme Court Reporter, page 457.—H. Plamals, a subject of Spain, was a member of the crew of the British ship Pinar Del Rio. The ship was anchored at Philadelphia, Pa., on April 27, 1923, and while Plamals was being hoisted up to paint the smokestack a rope broke and he fell, sustaining serious injuries. Six months after the accident Plamals brought an action against the ship in the District Court of the Southern District of New York, alleging that his injuries were due to the fault or neglect of the steamship or those in charge of her in selecting a defective rope and also in ordering him to perform services not within the scope of his duties. Plamals claimed his right to an action under the Jones Act (41 Stat. 1007), which is as follows: Sec. 20. That any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the commonlaw right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States confer­ ring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.

The district court held that the rights of the parties were governed by the law of the ship’s flag and that the British workmen’s compen­ sation act afforded the only remedy. This court accordingly dis­ missed the petition of Plamals. He thereupon appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the Jones Act should not be construed as to subject ves­ sels to secret liens securing undisclosed and unlimited claims by seamen for personal injuries.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5

6

DECISIONS OF T H E COURTS

The case was carried by Plamals to the United States Supreme Court, and on May 14, 1928, the decisions of the lower courts were affirmed. In the opinion written by Mr. Justice McReynolds he said in part as follows: We agree with the view of the circuit court of appeals and find it unnecessary now to consider whether the provisions of section 33 are applicable where a foreign seaman employed on a foreign ship suffers injuries while in American waters. The record does not support the suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio was unseaworthy. The mate selected a bad rope when good ones were available. We must treat the proceeding as one to enforce the liability pre­ scribed by section 33. It was so treated by petitioner’s proctor at the original trial, and the application for certiorari here spoke of it as based upon that section. The evidence would not support a recovery upon any other ground. Section 33 brings into our maritime law the provisions of certain statutes which define the liability of masters to employees originally intended to be enforced in actions at law. They imposed personal liability and gave no lien of any kind. The statute which extended them to seamen expressly provided that the employer might be sued only in the district where he resides or has his principal office. This provision repels the suggestion that the intention was to subject the ship to in rem proceedings. Generally, at least, proceedings of that nature may be brought wherever the ship happens to be. The ordinary maritime privilege or lien, though adhering to the vessel, is a secret one, which may operate to the prejudice of general creditors and purchasers without notice, and is therefore sfricti juris. It can not be extended by construction, analogy, or inference. To subject vessels during all the time allowed by the statute of limitations to secret liens to secure undisclosed and unlimited claims for personal injuries by every seaman who may have suffered injury thereon would be a very serious burden. One desiring to purchase, for example, could only guess vaguely concerning the value. “An act to provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine ” ought not to be so construed in the absence of compelling language. C o n t r a c t or E m p l o y m e n t —A d v a n c e m e n t s — S e a m e n —W ages — Jackson et al. v. The “ Archimedes ” (Lamport & Holt Line {Ltd.), claimant), Supreme Court of the United States {January 3, 1928) yIfi Supreme Court Reporter, page 164-—John J. Jackson, a British sea­ man, and others, shipped from Manchester, England, in May, 1922, aboard the Archimedes, a British vessel, to New York and return. When they signed the shipping articles they received advances on account of wages, which was customary and sanctioned by the British law. The vessel arrived in New York on June 1, and on June 3 the men applied for and received from the master further

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

7

CONTRACT OF E M P L O Y M E N T

payments on account of wages which, in addition to the advances made in England, exceeded one-half of the wages then earned and unpaid. They made a formal demand upon the master on June 8 for one-half of the wages then earned and unpaid, disregarding the advances made in England. The master refused; the men left the ship and brought suit^ claiming that they were entitled to the full wages earned at the time of the demand without deducting the ad­ vances made in England, since these were invalidated by section 10 of the Dingley Act, as amended (making it unlawful to pay a seaman his wages in advance), and should be disregarded in computing the amount of the wages due. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that the Dingley Act does not prohibit advances to seamen on foreign vessels in foreign ports, and such advances can not be treated as invalid and disregarded when wages are demanded in this country. The case was taken to the court of appeals and judgment was affirmed. The case was carried to the United States Supreme Court, and this court affirmed the decision of the State court. The court based its decision on a former case decided in Sandberg v. McDonald (248 U. S. 185, 195), in which it was held that section 11 of the seamen’s act did not render invalid the contracts of foreign seamen as to the advance payment of wages made by a foreign vessel in a foreign country in which the law sanctioned such contract and payment, and that when the seaman demanded in this country payment of half wages the master was entitled to deduct the advances made in the foreign country. In the case of Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. (248 U. S. 205), the United States Supreme Court likewise held that the seamen’s act of 1915 did not make invalid advances that had been made to seamen by the master of an American vessel in a foreign port. The court concluded that section 10 of the Dingley Act as amended expressed no intention to extend the provisions of the statute to ad­ vance payments made by foreign vessels while in foreign ports. Nor can such an intention be “ gathered from implication ” or from anything in the legislative history of the amendment, in which no reference was made to foreign vessels.

C ontract

of

E

m ploym ent—

A

s s ig n m e n t

of

W

ages—

R

elease—

Bryant v. AsTcin remises for the transaction of business. The reason for the distinction is that plaintiff’s knowledge of the situation and the

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

54

DECISIONS OP T H E COURTS

dangers existing because of the narrow space between the tracks was at least equal to that chargeable against the defendant. The rule of law which holds the employer to ordinary care to provide his employees a reasonably safe place in which to work did not impose upon defendant an obligation to adopt or maintain any particular standard for the spacing or construction of its tracks and yards. Carriers, like other employers, have much freedom of choice in providing facilities and places for the use of their employees. Courts will not prescribe the space to be maintained between tracks in switching yards, nor leave such engineering questions to the uncer­ tain and varying opinions of juries. Having regard to plaintiff’s knowledge of the situation, it is clear that the evidence when taken most favorably to him is not sufficient to warrant a finding that defendant failed in any duty owed him in respect of the space be­ tween the tracks. In any event plaintiff assumed the risk. He was familiar with the yard and the width of the space between the tracks and knew that cars were liable to be shunted without warning to him. The dangers were obvious and must have been fully known and ap­ preciated by him. E mployers’ L iability—A ssumption of Risk—Contributory Negligence—Death—Negligence— Burgess v. North Carolina Elec­

trical Power Co., Supreme Court of North Carolina (February 23, 1927), 136 Southeastern Reporter, page 711.—John H. Burgess was employed as a lineman for the North Carolina Electrical Power Co.

He was killed when he fell from a pole which he was climbing while in the performance of his work as a lineman.

The widow of Burgess brought an action in the Superior Court of Buncombe County against the power company, alleging that the pole from which her husband fell was defective, in that at the time it was selected for use in the power transmission line it was too soft to hold the spikes the deceased used in climbing the pole; that when he had climbed the pole a distance of 20 or 25 feet from the ground, the spike upon which he was supporting himself tore loose from the pole, thus causing him to fall and sustain the injuries from which he died. The widow also alleged that the company knew, or could have known had they made a reasonable inspection at the time of its selection, that the pole was then defective; that the company was negligent in using such a defective pole and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the fall, resulting in the fatal injuries. A judgment was given the widow in the superior court. The power company carried the case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, denying that the pole was defective or that they were negligent in selecting and using the pole.

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

em ployees’

l ia b il it y

55

The State supreme court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, saying in part: It is ordinarily the duty of the employer to make a reasonable inspection of the appliance or instrumentality, at least at the time of its selection, in order to determine whether or not it is free from defects discoverable by such inspection. A breach of this duty is negligence, and, if such breach results in damage, the negligence is actionable. The evidence in the instant case tended to show that the defect in the pole which caused plaintiff’s intestate to fall existed at the time the pole was selected by defendant’s foreman for use in the line in process of construction, and that it could have been discovered by an ordinary inspection. The foreman selected the pole, and directed plaintiff’s intestate and other employees of defendant to use the pole. Before selecting said pole, it was the duty of defendant’s foreman to make a reasonable inspection of the pole, having in mind that linemen in the employment of defendant would be required to climb the pole after it was installed by using spikes strapped to their feet. The failure to make such inspection, if found by the jury, was negli­ gence, and defendant is liable for damages resulting from such negli­ gence. It can not be held, upon all the evidence, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s intestate by his own negligence contributed to his injuries, or by his contract of employment assumed the risk of such injuries. Issues involving these defenses were properly submitted to the jury. E mployers’ L iability—A ssumption Negligence—Negligence—Safe Place

B isk—Contributory W ork— Sanders v. A r­

of to

mour