Legal Opinion
Zientek v. Reading Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 28, 1950No. Civ. A. 9662PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WELSH, District Judge.
The argument advanced by the defendant is that since plaintiff was injured aboard a car float on a navigable river of the United States the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A, § 901 et seq., is applicable, and since the remedies provided for under that Act are sole and exclusive the action insofar as it relates to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., must be dismissed.
1. The general scheme of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was to provide compensation for workers engaged in maritime work who…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Nogueira v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Moores's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Lucier v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Buren v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Finberg v. SullivanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
- O'ROuRke v. Pennsylvania R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- O'Rourke v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, E.D. New York · 1951
- Rist v. Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.