Document: 358 U.S. 272 79 S.Ct. 266 3 L.Ed.2d 292 Harry A. HAHN, Petitioner,v.ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO., a Corporation. No. 52. Argued Dec. 11, 1958. Decided Jan. 12, 1959. Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, See 359 921, 577. Mr. Dwight L. Schwab, Portland Or., for the petitioner. Ray H. Lafky, Salem, State of Oregon, as amicus curiae. Arno Denecke, Portland, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 By its terms, Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act does not apply 'if recovery disability or death through workmen's compensation proceedings may * validly be provided by law.' § 3, 44 Stat. 1426, 33 U.S.C. 903(a), U.S.C.A. 903(a) (emphasis supplied). In Davis v. Department Labor, 317 249, 63 225, 87 L.Ed. 246, we recognized that in some cases it was impossible to predict advance trial whether worker's injury occurred an operation which, although maritime nature, so 'local' allow state laws under limitations Southern Pacific Co. Jensen, 244 205, 37 524, 61 1086. As within this 'twilight zone,' Davis, effect, gave injured waterfront employee election recover either Workmen's Law which occurred. It seems plain enough petitioner's 'through proceedings,' could have been, fact was, 'provided law' Oregon Act. Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 656.002 656.990. Therefore, did bar claim law. But since his employer had elected reject them, automatic provisions claim. Section 656.024 law provides, however, when has Act's maintain courts negligence action damages. Of course, do if case were then would provide exclusive remedy. Since is follows from what held nothing United States Constitution prevents recovery. 2 The judgment reversed cause remanded Supreme Court inconsistent with opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE Justice FRANKFURTER took no part consideration decision case. 4 STEWART, whom HARLAN joins, dissenting. 5 This poses difficult important issue first impression. decides it, I think, incorrectly. 6 petitioner while working on barge navigable waters Oregon. respondent secured payment Act, 901 et seq., but covered Law, seq. benefits federal statute clearly available at all times Instead accepting these benefits, he brought personal injuries court, permitting such against participating plan.1 7 court entered employer, notwithstanding jury award favor, affirmed Court, sole remedy statute. 214 Or. 1, 320 P.2d 668. today reversed. 8 creation Labor zone' practical solution problem, problem stemming 1086, one 25 years post-Jensen history failed solve. how assure employees simple, prompt, certain protection Congress intended give enacting U.S., page 254, 228. effect told doubtful assured proceeded act Moores' Case, 323 Mass. 162, 80 N.E.2d 478, per curiam, sub nom. Bethlehem Steel Moore, 335 874, 69 239, 93 417. 9 Even premise circumstances surrounding Hahn's accident twilight zone, supposed until allowed spurn submit jury.2 Chappell C. D. Johnson Lumber Corp., D.C., 112 F.Supp. 625, other grounds, Cir., 216 F.2d 873. 10 interest clear legislative purpose certainty security compensation, 'illogic' zone permitted.3 Such illogic should utilized frustrate very purpose. affirm judgment. deprived traditional common-law defenses. 656.024. pertinent provision follows: '(a) shall payable chapter respect employee, only results occurring upon (including any dry dock) (Emphasis added.) background been much criticized discussed. For summaries, see Gilmore Black, Admiralty (1957), 6—48; Larson, (1952), 89.00 seq.; Rodes, Maritime Employees: Obscurity Twilight Zone, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 637 (1955).

Category: 7