U.S. Supreme Court

Alaska Packers Assn. v. IndustrialAcc. Comm'n,276U.S. 467 (1928)Alaska Packers Association v.Industrial Accident Commission

No. 266

Argued March 2, 1928

Decided April 9, 1928

276U.S. 467

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OFCALIFORNIA

Syllabus

A person employed by a fishing and canning company as a seaman,fisherman, and for general work in and about a cannery was injured,after the fishing season was over, while standing upon the shoreand endeavoring to push a stranded fishing boat into navigablewater for the purpose of floating it to a nearby dock, where it wasto be lifted out and stored for the winter.Held that theinjury, if within the admiralty jurisdiction, was of such a localcharacter as to be cognizable under a state compensation law. P.276 U. S. 469.

73 Calif.Dec 330, affirmed.

Page 276 U. S. 468

Certiorari, 275 U.S. 512, to a judgment of the Supreme Court ofCalifornia, affirming an award of the State Industrial AccidentCommission.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

While standing on the land in Alaska, respondent Petersonendeavored to push into navigable water a stranded boat, 26 feetlong, theretofore used by him and another for taking fish, andwhile so engaged sustained bodily injuries. The fishing season hadended, the nets had been removed, and the boat, partly in thewater, was resting on the sand. The immediate purpose was to floatit to the dock nearby in order that it might be lifted thereon andstored for the winter, according to the ordinary practice.

Petitioner is a California corporation engaged in the businessof taking fish in Alaska and canning them at its factory located inthat territory. Peterson resided in California. Within that state,he entered into a contract with the association whereby he agreedto go to Alaska as a seaman on its barkStar of Iceland,and after arriving at the cannery to go ashore and act there asdirected -- "anything I was told to do." Among other things, hemade nets, fixed up the small boats always kept there, took themout, and served as a fisherman on one of them.

The Industrial Accident Commission of California, purporting toact under the laws of that state, made an award against thepetitioner and in favor of Peterson, and this was affirmed by theSupreme Court. The judgment is

Page 276 U. S. 469

challenged here upon the sole ground that, when injured, he wasdoing maritime work under a maritime contract, and that the rightsand liabilities of the parties must be determined by applying thegeneral rules of maritime law, and not otherwise.Union FishCo. v. Erickson,248 U. S. 308;Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,244 U.S. 205, and similar cases, are relied upon.

Whether in any possible view the circumstances disclose a causewithin the admiralty jurisdiction we need not stop to determine.Even if an affirmative answer be assumed, the petitioner must fail.Peterson was not employed merely to work on the bark or the fishingboat. He also undertook to perform services as directed on land inconnection with the canning operations. When injured, certainly hewas not engaged in any work so directly connected with navigationand commerce that to permit the rights of the parties to becontrolled by the local law would interfere with the essentialuniformity of the general maritime law. The work was really localin character. The doctrine announced inGrant-Smith Porter ShipCo. v. Rohde,257 U. S. 469, andMiller's Ind. Underwriters v. Braud,270 U. S.59,270 U. S. 64, isincompatible with the petitioner's claim.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Affirmed.