Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen
244 U.S. 205 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State laws may not apply to maritime torts if they work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.
Facts:
- Southern Pacific Company, a Kentucky corporation, operated the steamship El Oriente, which traveled between New York and Texas.
- On August 15, 1914, the El Oriente was berthed at a pier in the North River, New York, in the navigable waters of the United States, for the purpose of loading and unloading cargo.
- Christen Jensen, an employee of Southern Pacific Company, was working as a stevedore, operating a small electric truck to move cargo from the ship to the pier.
- While driving the loaded truck out of a port in the side of the vessel and onto the gangplank, the truck became jammed.
- Jensen reversed the truck at full speed back into the ship's hatchway.
- He failed to lower his head and struck the top of the hatchway, which broke his neck and caused his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Christen Jensen's widow filed a claim with the New York Workmen's Compensation Commission.
- The Commission found for the claimant and issued an award against Southern Pacific Company.
- The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the Commission's award.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division.
- The Southern Pacific Company sought review from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New York Workmen's Compensation Act, when applied to an injury sustained by a longshoreman working on a gangplank between a vessel and a pier in navigable waters, unconstitutionally interfere with the uniform federal maritime law established by Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McReynolds
Yes. The New York Workmen’s Compensation Act is unconstitutional as applied to this case because it interferes with the uniformity of federal maritime law. Article III, § 2 of the Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases, which implies a uniform body of federal law governing maritime matters. While the Judiciary Act's 'saving to suitors' clause preserves common-law remedies in state courts, the remedy provided by the New York statute—a no-fault compensation scheme—is not a common-law remedy. Allowing each state to impose its own distinct liability scheme on vessels in its ports would destroy the national uniformity that the Constitution's grant of admiralty jurisdiction was designed to ensure. Such state legislation works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law and interferes with its proper harmony and uniformity.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes
No. The New York Workmen's Compensation Act should apply, as states have the power to legislate in areas of maritime law where Congress has not acted. The 'saving to suitors' clause preserves the power of state courts, and by extension, state legislatures, to provide remedies. The common law is not a fixed, abstract entity but is the law of a particular state, which can be altered by statute. If a state can create a statutory right for wrongful death on the high seas, it can also create a statutory workers' compensation system for its own harbors. The maritime law is not a complete code and can be supplemented by state law, and the Court's concerns about lack of uniformity are overstated.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Pitney
No. The New York law is constitutional because the grant of admiralty jurisdiction in the Constitution was intended to establish the power of federal courts to hear cases, not to impose a single, mandatory system of substantive law on state courts. The 'saving to suitors' clause expressly preserves the concurrent jurisdiction of common-law courts and their ability to apply local law and statutes. The majority's decision wrongly implies that federal maritime law displaces state law without any action from Congress, which is inconsistent with how the Court has treated state regulation in the context of interstate commerce. This ruling improperly curtails the police powers of the states to regulate conduct and provide remedies for injuries occurring within their own territorial waters.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the 'uniformity doctrine' in maritime law, holding that the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction implicitly requires a uniform body of law that cannot be materially altered by state statutes. The decision created a jurisdictional gap, leaving many maritime workers like longshoremen without a remedy under state workers' compensation laws and, at the time, without a federal equivalent. This 'Jensen gap' directly prompted Congress to enact the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) in 1927 to provide a federal remedy. The decision remains a foundational, though frequently criticized and limited, precedent defining the boundary between federal maritime authority and state legislative power.
Unlock the full brief for Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen