Avondale Marine Ways, Inc. v. Henderson, Deputy Commissioner, et al. (346 U.S. 366)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 9, 1953 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 346 U.S. 366 · 74 S. Ct. 100
- Decided
- November 9, 1953
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 8–0
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed. Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249; Kaiser Co. v. Baskin, 340 U. S. 886; Baskin v. Industrial Accident Commission, 338 U. S. 854; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Moores, 335 U. S. 874. Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring. I do not think this case belongs in the “twilight zone” of Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249, 256. Recovery was allowed under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for a death which occurred on a barge drawn up for repairs on a marine railway. Norton v. Vesta Coal Co., 63 F. 2d 165, was such a case and Judge Woolley dissented from a holding that a marine railway was not included in the statutory language, “any dry dock.” As Judge Woolley explained, there are three kinds of dry docks. (1) A floating dry dock, as its name makes clear, floats on the water, the vessel resting on the bottom of the dry dock after the water has been removed. (2) A graven dry dock is dug into the land. The vessel floats in but rests on land once the water has been pumped out. (3) Finally there is the marine railway, on which the vessel is drawn out of the water, instead of the water being drawn away from the vessel. A ship is no more and no less on land when it rests in a graven dry dock than when it rests on a marine railway. The three types of…
Excerpt of a 2,496-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.