London Guar. & Acc. Co., Ltd. v. Indus. Accident Co., Ltd.,
279 U.S. 109 (1929)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

London Guar. & Acc. Co., Ltd. v. Indus. Accident Co., Ltd., 279 U.S. 109 (1929)

London Guarantee & Accident Company, Ltd.

v. Industrial Accident Commission

No. 491

Argued March 7, 1929.-Decided April 8, 1929

279 U.S. 109


1. Employment as sailor and assistant navigator of a vessel capable of 500 mile sea voyages, registered as a vessel engaged in transporting people for hire, is a maritime employment though the business be confined to taking patrons on trips of from five to ten miles to and from deep sea fishing places within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. P. 279 U. S. 123.

2. Where a person so employed lost his life by drowning while endeavoring, under orders from a superior, to save the vessel with relation to which he was employed when she was driven by a

Page 279 U. S. 110

storm from her mooring with no one on board, the fact that he was not employed on board at the time did not take his case from the admiralty jurisdiction. P. 279 U. S.

3. The jurisdiction of the admiralty over a maritime tort does not depend upon the wrong's having been committed on board a vessel, but upon its having been committed upon the high seas, or other navigable waters. P. 279 U. S. 123.

4. Jurisdiction in admiralty arises from Art. 3, § 2, of the Constitution, extending the judicial power of the United States to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; it does not depend on interstate or foreign commerce. P. 279 U. S. 124.

5. The business of transporting persons for hire on navigable waters of the United States is nonetheless commerce, and within the admiralty jurisdiction, if the object of the trips be to serve the pleasure of the passengers in fishing. P. 279 U. S. 124.

6. Application of a state workmen's compensation act to a claim for death of a seaman in a case involving no interstate or foreign commerce but having no feature other than those characteristically maritime, is a violation of the exclusive maritime jurisdiction. P. 279 U. S. 125.

75 Cal. Dec. 481 reversed.

Appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of California which, reversing the district court of Appeal, 53 Cal.App. Dec. 457, affirmed an award of the state Industrial Accident Commission in behalf of relatives of a deceased seaman, in a proceeding under the state Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellant was the insurer of the employer.

Page 279 U. S. 115

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.