It being settled that, in the absence of congressional
legislation, the commerce clause does not forbid a state to
legislate concerning the relative rights and duties of employers
and employees within her borders although engaged in interstate
commerce, a contention to the contrary
Page 244 U. S. 203
will not afford jurisdiction to this Court to review a state
judgment.
So
held where an Ohio elective Workmen's Compensation
Law, in withdrawing the defenses of contributory negligence,
negligence of fellow servant, and assumption of risk from employers
not accepting provisions of the act, was claimed to contravene the
commerce clause, as applied to a company engaged in interstate
transportation by steamship.
The objection that the Ohio Compensation Act, as applied to a
steamship company engaged in interstate commerce, would be an
unconstitutional invasion of the federal maritime jurisdiction
cannot be considered in this case, since the jurisdiction of the
court below is confined to review of the trial court's judgment for
errors appearing on he record, and this objection was neither made
in the trial court, nor, clearly, in the petition in error before
the court below, nor definitely mentioned in the latter court's
opinion.
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McCrew, 188 U.
S. 291.
Dismissed.
The cases are stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS
NUMBER 469
Seeking damages under the laws of Ohio, defendant in error,
Wattawa, brought this action in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga
County. He alleged that, by reason of the Steamship Company's
negligence, he suffered personal injuries in September, 1913, while
employed by it as a deck hand on the
Edwin N. Ohl, then
lying at Sandusky, Ohio, and that, although an employer of more
than five men, the company was not a subscriber or contributor to
the state insurance fund provided for by the Act of May 31, 1911,
the first Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act.
* In defense,
Page 244 U. S. 204
the company claimed that, although employing more than five men,
it was engaged in interstate commerce, and therefore was not
required to subscribe to the state insurance fund, denied
negligence, and alleged that the accident resulted wholly from the
employee's want of care, and moreover, that he had assumed the
risk. Upon motion, the allegation as to assumption of risk was
stricken out.
The court charged that, as the company had not accepted the
Compensation Act, it could not rely upon common law defenses based
on the fellow-servant rule, assumption of risk, or contributory
negligence. Judgment upon a verdict for $5,200 was affirmed by the
court of appeals, and petitions in error and for certiorari were
denied by the supreme court.
We are asked to reverse the action of the court of appeals upon
two grounds: first, because the company was engaged in interstate
commerce, and therefore could not be subjected to the Compensation
Act without burdening such commerce, contrary to the commerce
clause of the federal Constitution. Second, because Article III,
§ 2 of the Constitution extended judicial power to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and thereby rendered the
general maritime law part of the federal laws not subject to
alteration by state statutes.
The first point relied upon is entirely without merit, and
inadequate to support our jurisdiction. In the absence of
congressional legislation, the settled general rule is that,
without violating the commerce clause, the states may legislate
concerning relative rights and duties of employers and employees
while within their borders, although engaged in interstate
commerce.
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v.
Ohio, 173 U. S. 285,
173 U. S. 297;
The Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.
S. 352,
230 U. S.
408.
The second reason for reversal now set up was not presented to
the trial court in any form. It was not pointed out clearly, if at
all, by the petition in error before
Page 244 U. S. 205
the court of appeals, and was not definitely mentioned in the
opinion of that court, whose powers only extend to a review of the
trial court's judgment for errors appearing on the record. Section
12,247 Ohio General Code, as amended by 103 Ohio Laws, pp. 405,
431. The question therefore is not properly before us.
Mutual
Life Insurance Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.
S. 291,
188 U. S.
308-309.
The writ of error must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
NUMBER 470
Counsel for the Steamship Company have admitted of record here
that this cause involves the same state of facts and questions of
law as those presented in Number 469. They were heard together, and
the same judgment will be entered in each of them.
Dismissed.
* General Code §§ 1465-37 to 1465-70.
