That part of the elective Workmen's Compensation Act of
Pennsylvania which denied compensation to alien parents not
residents of the United States is not, as applied to a case of
death without negligence or fault, at variance with the Treaty with
Italy, which guarantees that the citizens of each country shall
receive in the states and territories of the other the
"protection granted by any state or national law which
establishes a civil responsibility for injuries or for death caused
by negligence or fault and gives to relatives or heirs of the
injured party a right of action, which right shall not be
restricted on account of the nationality of said relatives or
heirs,"
etc. P.
270 U. S.
538.
Page 270 U. S. 537
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a claim for compensation under the Workmen's
Compensation Act of Pennsylvania. It is for the death of the
claimants' son in the employment of the defendants, without
negligence or fault on the part of the latter, so far as appears.
The son died unmarried and without issue, and the claimants, the
plaintiffs in error, were wholly dependent upon him for support;
but they were Italians living in Italy. The Compensation Board, in
obedience to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, awarded $820,
and the award was affirmed by that court. The judgment was reversed
by the superior court on the ground that the statute expressly
provided that "alien . . . parents . . . not residents of the
United States, shall not be entitled to any compensation," and that
the Treaty of 1913 with Italy did not cover the case. 81
Pa.Superior Court 403. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme
Court on the opinion below. 281 Pa. 227. As the plaintiffs
contended that the Treaty with Italy invalidated the above clause
of the state law and gave them a right to recover, a writ of error
was allowed.
Article 3 of the treaty as amended reads:
"The citizens of each of the High Contracting Parties shall
receive in the states and territories of the other the most
constant security and protection for their persons and property and
for their rights, including that form of protection granted by any
state or national law which establishes a civil responsibility for
injuries or for death caused by negligence or fault and gives to
relatives or heirs of the injured party a right of action, which
right shall not be restricted on account of the nationality of said
relatives or heirs; and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights
and privileges
Page 270 U. S. 538
as are or shall be granted to nationals, provided that they
submit themselves to the conditions imposed on the latter."
38 Stat. 1669, 1670. This amendment was suggested by the
decision in
Maiorano v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.,
213 U. S. 268,
that, under the laws of Pennsylvania, a nonresident alien widow
could not recover for the death of her husband caused by the
defendant's negligence, although citizens of the state were given a
remedy. Following this suggestion, the words of the amendment, if
taken literally, deal only with death caused by negligence or
fault. It is natural that they should be limited in that way. Apart
from those states, of which Pennsylvania is not one, that very
recently have substituted for the common law a general system of
quasi-insurance, liability without fault is exceptional,
and usually has not been imposed for death except as the result of
a voluntary arrangement. The statutes of Pennsylvania accord with
this view of the treaty. They give to alien nonresident dependent
parents the same right to recover damages for death due to fault
that they give to citizens and residents. Then the Compensation Act
offers a plan different from the common law, and the workman is
free not to come in under it. If he does, of course, all benefits
dependent on the new arrangement are matters of agreement and
statutory consequences of agreement, and cannot be carried further
than the contract and statute go. One of those benefits is
compensation irrespective of the cause of death, but it is confined
to residents. Whether the workman's election to take advantage of
the statute could be made a bar to a suit by his parents alleging a
wrong is not before us here, but the right to recover without
alleging fault depends on the terms of the Act.
We are of opinion that the Treaty was construed rightly by the
courts below. Were it otherwise, and if the excluding clause of the
Compensation Act were held void, the question would arise whether
the general grant to
Page 270 U. S. 539
parents in the plaintiffs' situation could be extended to cover
those whom it excluded in terms or whether, notwithstanding a
saving clause, ยง 502, the whole grant would fail on the ground that
it could not be maintained as made, and could not be assumed to go
farther. But treaties are not likely to intermeddle with the
consequences of voluntary arrangements, if the right is given, as
here it was given by other statutes, to sue for death wrongfully
caused, at least unless those arrangements made by third persons
take away that right. It looks somewhat as if, in the first stages
of this case, that right was supposed to be taken away; but, if so,
the question was not saved, and the only question before us is
whether the plaintiffs can recover under the Compensation Act, not
whether they could recover for a wrongful death, which was not
proved or even alleged.
Judgment affirmed.