Nogueira v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

Nogueira v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

Opinion

 [*129]   [**303]   [***756]  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this action, brought in the District Court of the United States under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the complaint was dismissed upon the ground that  [*130]  the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of March 4, 1927, was applicable and afforded an exclusive remedy. (c. 509, 44 Stat.  [****3]  1424; U. S. C. Tit. 33, secs. 901-950). The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 32 Fed. 2d 179.

The petitioner was injured on a car float of five hundred tons belonging to the defendant railroad company. The float was a vessel used in the transportation of railroad cars and at the time of the injury was lying in navigable waters at pier 42, East River, New York harbor. The petitioner was employed by the railroad company as one of a gang of freight handlers in loading freight into cars on the float. He was using a hand truck in carrying a bale of paper, a piece of interstate freight, and, as the float was several feet lower than the dock, it was necessary to move the bale over a plank which ran from the dock to the middle of the float at a steep incline. Several men were assigned to help the petitioner in order to control the movement of the bale by handhooks. The petitioner was in front of the truck holding its handles and alleged that by the negligence of the other men, who failed to hold the bale properly, it got out of control and skidded  [***757]  down the plank, throwing the petitioner on the floor of the float and crushing his leg.

The contention is that the  [****4]  car float was used as an adjunct to railroad transportation in interstate commerce, and that it was not the intention of Congress to substitute the remedy under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for that afforded by the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals assumed that the petitioner would have been entitled to prosecute his claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act if the later act did not apply. If the latter was applicable the remedy thereunder was made exclusive by  [*131]  the explicit provision of section 5. 44 Stat. p. 1426; U. S. C., Tit. 33, sec. 905. ¹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.