The district court has admiralty jurisdiction over a libel to
recover damages, in accordance with a local death statute, for a
death occurring on navigable waters while the decedent was there
performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat, and
occasioned by a tort then and there committed. P.
261 U. S.
480.
Affirmed.
Error to a judgment of the district court recovered by the
defendant in error in her libel for damages for the death of her
husband.
Page 261 U. S. 480
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question propounded upon this direct writ of error is
whether the district court rightly held that it had jurisdiction to
entertain the libel by which defendant in error sought to recover
damages for the death of her husband. 280 F. 125.
Plaintiff in error, a corporation engaged in dredging, pile
driving, etc., maintains a yard at Buffalo, New York, and also
keeps there scows and tugs. Leo Kierejewski, a master boilermaker,
was employed by it to perform services as called upon. Acting under
this employment, he began to make repairs upon a scow moored in the
navigable waters of Buffalo River. He stood upon a scaffold resting
upon a float alongside. One of the company's tugs came near,
negligently agitated the water, swamped the float, and precipitated
him into the stream, where he drowned.
While performing maritime service to a completed vessel afloat,
he came to his death upon navigable waters as the result of a tort
there committed. The rules of the maritime law, supplemented by the
local death statute, applied, and fixed the rights and liabilities
of the parties.
Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.
S. 233.
"The general doctrine that, in contract matters, admiralty
jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the transaction, and in
tort matters upon the locality, has been so frequently asserted by
this Court that it must now be treated as settled."
Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.
S. 469,
257 U. S.
476.
In the cause last cited, neither Rohde's general employment nor
his activities had any direct relation to navigation
Page 261 U. S. 481
or commerce -- the matter was purely local -- and we were of
opinion that application of the state statute, as between the
parties, would not work material prejudice to any characteristic
feature of the general maritime law or interfere with its proper
harmony or uniformity.
Here, the circumstances are very different. Not only was the
tort committed and effective on navigable waters, but the rights
and liabilities of the parties are matters which have direct
relation to navigation and commerce.
Southern Pacific Co. v.
Jensen, 244 U. S. 205;
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.
S. 255;
State Industrial Commission of New York v.
Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263.
Affirmed.