Legal Opinion
Claim of Heaney v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 19, 1935PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHubbs, J.
Claimant was injured by an explosion on a boat on which he was going to work. It is urged an award of compensation cannot be sustained because the maritime law applies.
In considering this case it is necessary to determine, first, whether it involves a contract matter or a tort matter and, secondly, if a contract matter, whether the contract was maritime in its nature. This is true because of the well-established rule enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States.
“ The general doctrine that in contract matters admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction and in tort…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. RohdeSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- State Industrial Comm'n of NY v. Nordenholt Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kuhn v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Pan American Airways, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944
- Sneeden v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
- Zubik v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Martinson v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.