FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 |

«THE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS BY CLARENCE W. IIOBBS 1. In General. A goodly number of the compensation acts are by their ...»

-- [ Page 7 ] --

Both sections contain provisions that if an employee receives compensation or damages under law of another state, he shall not by reason of this provision, receive greater compensation for same injury than is provided by this article.

Section 65(12) provides that act shall apply to miners working outside state bounds if tipple, mouth or principal entrance of mine is in Maryland.

Validity of restriction of Sec. 32(43) to "citizens or residents" upheld.

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Goslin, 160 A. 804.

23. Massachusetts.

Sec. 26 of act indicates that act applies to extra-territorial injuries unless employee has given notice of his claim to rights of action under the laws of jurisdiction where injury occurs, and applies where employee, having given such notice has waived it.

Sec. 24. Employee deemed to have waived rights of action at common law or under law of any other jurisdiction.

Acts 1927 C. 309 Sec. 13. Employee deemed to have waived rights of action under laws of any other jurisdiction as to injuries therein occurring unless he gives employer notice that he intends to claim such rights within 30 days of effective date of act.

As originally drafted, act not extra-territorial.

In re American Mutual Liability Co., 102 N. E. 693.

In re Gould, id.

In re ]3. F. Sturtevant Co., id.

Act now extra-territorial as to contracts of employment made in Massachusetts with Massachusetts employer.

Pederzoli's Case, 169 N. E. 427.

Applies even though employee has accepted compensation under law of another state.

McLaughlin's Case, 174 N. E. 338.

Migues' Case, 183 N. E. 847.

Insurer liable for extra-territorial injuries, regardless of policy limitations.

Wright's Case, 197 N. E. 5.


As to effect of abolition of common law defences in case of extraterritorial injuries, see Armburg v. B. & M. R. Co., 177 N. E. 665, 285 U. S. 234.

As to application of act on land owned by United Stateg, see Lynch's Case, 183 N. E. 834.

(Questionable in view of decision in Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co., 291 U. S. 315)

24. Michigan.

Pt. III Sec. 19 gives remedy for extra-territorial injuries where employee is resident of state at time of injury, and contract of hire is made in state.

Extra-territorial application of act upheld.

Crane v. Leonard, Crossette & Riley, 183 N. W. 204.

Hulswit v. Escanaba Mfg. Co., 188 N. W. 411.

I(lettke v. C. & T. Commercial Driveaway, Inc., 231 N. W. 132.

Deakins v. Same, 231 N. W. 133.

Residential requirements not observed.

Roberts v. I. X. L. Glass Corp'n, 244 N. W. 188.

Wearner v. Michigan Conference, 7th Day Adventists, 245 N. W. 802.

Act has been held to apply to injuries sustained in Michigan where contract of hire is made outside state (but with Michigan employer) for work to be done, partly in Ohio, partly in Michigan.

Leininger v. Jacobs, 257 N. W. 764.

25. Minnesota.

No provisions : but act held to apply to extra-territorial injuries.

The earlier cases seem to be based on contract theory.

State ex tel. Chambers v. Dist. Ct., 166 N. W. 185.

The later cases apparently apply act extra-territorially on basis of an employment localized in Minnesota.

State ex tel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dist. Ct., 168 N. W. 177.

State ex tel. McCarthy Bros. v. Dist. Ct., 169 N. W. 274.

Krekelberg v. M. A. Floyd Co., 207 N. W. 193.

Irrespective of whether the employer is a Minnesota resident or an out of state concern with office only in Minnesota.

Stansberry v. Monitor Stove Co., 183 N. W. 977.

Bradtmiller v. Liquid Carbonic Co., 217 N. W. 680.

Intra-territorial application of act apparently uses same test, without regard to where contract was made.

Ginsburg v. Byers, 214 N. W. 55.


As to effect of extra-territorial feature on insurance policies, see State ex rel. London & Lancashire Ind. Co. v. Dist. Ct., 170 N. W. 218.

Residence of employee has no effect on extra-territorial application of act.

Brameld v. Albert Dickinson Co., 242 N. W. 465.

26. Mississippi.

No compensation act. Compensation act of Louisiana recognized as barring action of tort for injury in Mississippi, and remedy under that act enforced.

Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co., 126 So. 395.

27. Missouri.

Sec. 3310b of act states that act applies to all injuries in state, regardless of where contract of employment was made.

Act applies extra-territorially where contract is made in Missouri, unless contract otherwise provides.

Prior to enactment of compensation act, held that no action of tort could be maintained upon injury sustained in state where proceeding under compensation act was sole remedy.

Mitchell v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 215 S. W.


Action not barred if employer not subject to compensation act in state of injury.

Dillard v. Justus, 3 S. W. 2nd 392.

Action not permitted to enforce rights under compensation act of another state, where act prohibits maintaining of actions Harbis v. Cudahy Packing Co., 241 S. W. 960.

Subsequent to enactment of act, courts have applied act extra-territorially where contract of hire was made in Missouri.

State v. Missouri Compensation Commission, 8 S. W.

2nd 897.

Wadley v. Employers Liability etc. Corp'n, 37 S. W. 2nd 665.

Hartman v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 33 S. W.

2nd 241.

Muse v. E. A. Whitney & Son., 56 S. W. 2nd 848.

Even though contract is for work entirely outside state.

Zarnecke v. Blue Line Chemical Co., 54 S. W. 2nd 772.

Daggett v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co., 65 S. W.

2nd 1036.

And irrespective of employee's residence.

Bolin v. Swift & Co., 73 S. W. 2nd 774.


Right to compensation not barred by acceptance of compensation under act of another state.

Shout v. Gunite Concrete & Construction Co., 41 S. W.

2nd 629.

The federal courts have in one case applied act of another state to injury in Missouri, enjoining industrial commission from entertaining case.

Joseph Wiederhoff Inc. v. Neal, 6 F. Supp. 798.

28. Montana.

No extra-territorial provision.

Act has been held to apply to injury on territory of United States.

'State ex tel. Loney v. State Ind. Acc. Board, 286 P. 408.

29. Nebraska.

Laws 1935 C. 37 Sec. 15 makes provision for hearings in case of extra-territorial injuries.

Decisions as to extra-territorial application of act seem upon localization theory rather than on contract theory.

Thus, Nebraska law applies where work is for a Nebraska employer.

McGuire v. Phelan-Shirley Co., 197 N. W. 615.

Penwell v. Anderson, 250 N. W. 665.

Or where work is for out of state employer maintaining headquarters or an office in Nebraska, and work is directed from or incidental to the work of such headquarters or office.

Skelly Oil Co. v. Gaugenbaugh, 230 N. W. 688.

Stone v. Thomson Co., 245 N. W. 600.

But not when headquarters have been moved to another state.

Watts v. Long, 218 N. W. 410.

Or where employer has no place of business or merely incidental operations in Nebraska.

Freeman v. Higgins, 242 N. W. 271.

Rigg v. Atlantic, Pacific & Gulf Oil Co., 261 N. W. 900.

Similarly act applies to injury to employee hired outside state by non-resident employer, where employer moves headquarters to Nebraska and employee is injured there.

Esau v. Smith Bros., 246 N. W. 230.

30. Nevada.

Sec. 2723 of act gives act extra-territorial application where employee is hired in state and whose usual and ordinary duties are confined to state.

Provision whereby Nevada employers and any employees thereof may by joint election elect to come under act as to injuries outside of state.


31. New Hampshire.

No provision as to extra-territoriality.

As to application of compensation acts of other states to injuries in New Hampshire, see Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145.

32. New Jersey.

No provision as to extra-territoriality.

State act held applicable to injuries in state, irrespective of where contract of hire was made.

American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 92 A. 85, 93 A. 1083.

Davidheiser v. Hay Foundry & Iron Works, 94 A. 309.

Rounsaville v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 94 A. 392.

West Jersey Trust Co. v. Phila. & Reading R. Co., 95 A. 753.

But act held to apply extra-territorially where contract of hire is made in state.

Foley v. Home Rubber Co., 99 A. 624.

Frank Desiderio Sons Inc. v. Blunt, 167 A. 29.

Hi-Heat Gas Co. v. Dickerson, 170 A. 44, 174 A. 483.

Even though the work is to be performed outside the state.

Sweet v. Austin Co, 171 A. 684.

Award under act not barred by receipt of compensation in another state.

See preceeding case.

Act does not apply extra-territorlally if contract is made outside state, for work to be performed in state of injury, even though employee resides in New Jersey and employer has place of business there.

Harem v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co., 97 A. 730.

33. New Mexico.

No provision as to extra-territoriality.

Coflrt has declined to make award for injury in New Mexico where compensation has been awarded under law of state where contract of hire was made.

Hughey v. Ware, 276 P. 27.

34. New York.

No provision as to extra-territoriality.

A. Decisions Prior to Compensation Act.

Court recognizes compensation act of New Jersey as barring action of tort for injury sustained in New Jersey, where contract of hire is made in New Jersey with New Jersey corporation.

Wasilewskl v. Warner Sugar Ref'g Co., 149 N. Y. S. 1035.

286 E X T R A - T E R R I T O R I A L A P P L I C A T I O N OF C O M P E N S A T I O N ACTS

Also, when injury is sustained in New York, where contract of employment is made in New Jersey, between resident of New Jersey and New Jersey corporation, for services to be performed, part in New York, part in New Jersey.

Barnhart v. American Concrete Steel Co., 125 N. E. 675. See also, 167 N. Y. S. 475, 181 A. D. 881.

But where contract of hire is made in New York for services to be performed partly in New York, partly in New Jersey, an action of tort for an injury in New Jersey is not barred by New Jersey compensation act.

Pensabene v. F. & J. Auditore Co., 140 N. Y. S. 266.

Subrogation Section of New Jersey act does not create lien on New York judgment.

Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. Chartrand, 204 N. Y. S. 791.

B. Decisions Under Compensation Act. Contract Theory.

Act held extra-territorial where contract of hire is made in New York.

Post v. Burger & Gohlke, 111 N. E. 35 I.

Spratt v. Sweeny & Gray Co., 111 N. E. 1100.

Valentine v. Smith, Angevine & Co., 111 N. E. 1102.

Klein v. Stoller & Cook Co., 116 N. E. 1055.

Jenkins v. Hogan & Son, Inc., 163 N. Y. S. 707, 177 A. D. 36.

Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co., 167 N. Y. S. 274, 180 A. D. 59.

Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co., 167 N. Y. S. 475, 181 A. D. 881.

State Ind. Com. v. Barene, 177 N. Y. S. 689.

But not where contract of employment is for services exclusively in another state.

Gardiner v. Horse Heads Const. Co., 156 N. Y. S. 899. 171 A. D. 156.

Perlis v. Lederer, 178 N. Y. S. 449, 189 A. D. 425.

Prdich v. N. Y. C. P,. Co., 183 N. Y. S. 77. (This involved an action of tort, not a proceeding under compensation act.) An act has no application when contract of employment is not made in New York, and services are not to be performed in New York.

Thompson v. Foundation Co., 177 N. Y. S. 58, 188 A. D. 506.

Baggs v. Standard Oil Co., 180 N. Y. S. 560.

For extra-territorial application of law on vessel risk, see Edwardsen v. Jarvis Lighterage Co., 153 N. Y. S. 391, 168 A. D. 368.


Refusal to administer remedies under compensation act of another state.

Verdicchio v. McNab & Harlin Mfg. Co., 164 N. Y. S. 290, 178 A. D. 48.

Effect of receipt of compensation under law of another state.

Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co., 167 N. Y. S. 274, 180 A. D. 59.

(Held not to bar award.) Minto v. Hitchlngs & Co., 198 N. Y. S. 610, 210 A. D. 661.

(Held to bar award.) New York act held not applicable extra-territorially in case of employer who moved plant from state prior to passage of act, though contract of hire was made in New York.

Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co., 119 N. E. 878.

C. Decisions Under Compensation Act. Localization Theory.

Test of extra-territorlality held to be whether employment is located in New York.

Matter of Cameron v. Ellis Construction Co., 169 N. E. 622.

Smith v. Aerovane Utilities Corp'n, 181 N. E. 72.

New York law held applicable.

Smith v. Aerovane Utilities Corp'n, 181 N. E. 72. Case of New York employee doing work in Pennsylvania incidental to New York employment.

Madderns v. Fox Film Corp'n, 200 N. Y. S. 344, 205 A. D.

791. Moving picture actor on boat, injured on New Jersey side.

Amaxis v. Vassilaros, 250 N. Y. S. 201,232 A. D. 397. Painter doing transitory work in New Jersey.

Zeltoski v. Osborne Drilling Corp'n, 267 N. Y. S. 855, 239 A. D. 235. Driller making foundation tests for New York Co.

in Tennessee.

Ind. Com. v. Underwood Elliott Fisher Co., 276 N. Y. S. 519, 243 A. D. 658. Repair man on machines, working out of New York office.

Goddard v. Taylor Instrument Co., 282 N. Y. S. 182, 244 A. D. 836. Travelling salesman, working out of Rochester, N. Y. office.

New York law held not applicable.

Cameron v. Ellis Const. Co., 169 N. E. 622. Canadian employee of Massachusetts concern, working at gravel pit in Canada.


Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 |

Similar works:

«European Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, May 2009, pp. 324–350. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA Constitutionalism and Dissonances: Has Europe Paid Off Its Debt to Functionalism? Marco Dani* Abstract: The negative outcomes of the French and Dutch referenda on the Constitutional Treaty have opened a period of profound constitutional disenchantment in relation to the EU. This impression seems confirmed by the...»

«U. S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives DO I NEED A LICENSE TO BUY AND SELL FIREARMS? Guidance to help you understand when a Federal Firearms License is required under federal law. The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect and is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits in any matter, case, or proceeding, see United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979). Table of Contents Introduction Key Points Legal Framework...»

«THE NORMALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCIES Editor’s Note: Due to an unfortunate editorial oversight, Prof. Abi-Saab’s essay was omitted from our Summer 2009 issue, featuring a symposium on The Normalizing of Adjudication in Complex International Governance Regimes: Patterns, Possibilities, and Problems. It is printed here as a complement to that symposium. GEORGES ABI-SAAB* I. THE NORMALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION...................»

«Motor Vehicle Insurance Coverage Verification Task Force Report to the Legislature February 1, 2015 This document reports on the results of Minnesota’s Motor Vehicle Insurance Coverage Verification Task Force (established per Laws of Minnesota 2014, chapter 310, section 10 and chapter 312, section 37). The report presents the task force’s review and evaluation of approaches to insurance coverage verification, reducing the number of people who drive without insurance, and recommends...»


«Tennyson and the Men of Flux In June of 1830 Alfred Tennyson published his second volume of verse, Poems, Chiefly Lyrical.1 Included in that collection was a poem bearing the unusual title “Hoi rheontes” (“The men of flux” or more literally “the flowing ones”): I All thoughts, all creeds, all dreams are true, All visions wild and strange; Man is the measure of all truth Unto himself. All truth is change: All men do walk in sleep, and all Have faith in that they dream: For all things...»

«API POR FAVOR ESCRIBIR EL NOMBRE LEGAL COMPLETO DEL PACIENTE. ¿Se ha registrado en nuestro portal cibernético de PACIENTE? S / N Si no, visite www.sfenta.com y precionar en “Portal Link.” Nombre del Paciente:Seguro Social:_ _ _ Fecha De Nacimiento: / / Tel de Casa: () _ Celular: () Dirección: APT /UNIDAD: _ Ciudad: Estado Codigo Postal: _ Por favor de circular o llenarlas sections siguientes: Sexo: Masculino Femenina Estado Civil: Soltero Casado Viudo Divorciado Idioma: Ingles...»

«For people in local government In association with Sponsors of this guide Eversheds LLP As the leading law firm advising local authorities (ranked no 1 in Legal 500 and Chambers) we are ideally placed to advise on service transformation and the creation of social enterprises. We’re a modern, progressive law firm. We’re driven by new ideas; we’re excited by new approaches; and we’re also refreshingly down-to-earth. We work in partnership with our clients to challenge industry norms but...»

«Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement The undersigned (Recipient) hereby agrees that all financial and other information (Information) that it has and will receive concerning Norwood Brown Associates is confidential and will not be disclosed to any individual or entity without prior written consent. The Information shall remain the property of Norwood Brown Associates and shall be returned to Norwood Brown Associates promptly at its request together with all copies made thereof....»

«Marci Koski, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lessons from Area-wide, Multi-agency Habitat Conservation Plans in California by UCI Law Center for Land, Environment, & Natural Resources1 Alejandro E. Camacho, Professor of Law and Director; Elizabeth M. Taylor, Staff Attorney; Melissa L. Kelly, Environmental and Land Use Fellow March 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Development of Area-wide, Multi-agency Habitat Conservation Planning 3 A. The Endangered Species Act 4 B. The 1982 ESA...»

«Case Tracking and Performance Systems for Costa Rican Narcotraffic Prosecutors Award No. SINLEC10GR007 Quarterly Report July September 2011 Reporting activities related to the cost-amendment and extension of the Case Tracking and Performance Systems for Costa Rican Narcotraffic Prosecutors Project to further prosecutorial and courts management and provide support and training to the Costa Rican Attorney General’s Office in its fight against Narcotraffic Submitted to the Bureau of...»

«Republican Decree for Law No 12 for the Year 1994 Concerning Crimes and Penalties The President of the Republic: After referring to the Constitution of the Republic; And based on the Proposal of the Prime Minister; And after the approval of the Council of Ministers It is hereby decreed: Book ONE General Provisions on Crimes and Punishments Part One Crimes Chapter One The Limits for the Application of the Law of Crimes and Penalties General Definitions Article (1): The following words and...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.