Baltimore Dry Docks & Shipbuilding Co. v. Hoffman

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 7th, 1921, Emma V. H'offman, the widow of George H. Hoffman, of Baltimore City, filed a claim for compensation, under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of this State (Acts of 1914, 1916 and 1920), arising out of the' death of her husband, resulting from an injury received; on the 21st day of June, 1921, while in the employ of the Baltimore Dry Docks and Shipbuilding Company, as watchman and fireman .at Locust Point, Maryland. The claim was filed with the State Industrial Accident Commission of Maryland, and on the 8th of July, 1921, notice w.as given by the commission to the Baltimore Dry Docks and Shipbuilding Company, the employer, and the United States: Fidelity and Guaranty Company, the insurer, advising them that the claim would be considered by it, at their Baltimore office, on the 14th of July, 1921. It, appears that the employer and insurer appeared and contested the claim, on the grounds, as alleged in the record, first, because, the accident did not come within the jurisdic ⁷⁵ tion of tlie State Accident Commission, and second, the accident having occurred from “S'/S' Lio” which was afloat, it therefore comes under admiralty jurisdiction, and third, upon such other and further grounds., both legal and equitable as may appear, at the trial.

At the hearing before the State Industrial Accident Commission, the first and .second issues, filed on behalf of the defendants (the employer and the insurer) were sustained, and the following order passed by the commission: “It is, therefore, this 6th day of August, 1921, by the Stale Industrial Accident Commission, ordered that the claim of Emma Y. Hoffman, widow of George H. Hoffman, deceased, filed in this case against the Baltimore Dry Docks & Shipbuilding Company, Employer, and the IT. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Insurer, be and the same is hereby disallowed. “(Signed) “Robert E. Lee, “Joseph B. Harrington.” On the 2nd day of September, 1921, an appeal was taken by the claimant from the order of the commission, disallowing her claim, and the i*ecord of proceedings before the commission was transmitted to the Superior Court of Baltimore City for trial. At the conclusion of the testimony on both sides, in the trial of the case before a jury, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, the claimant submitted the following questions: (1) Did the deceased meet his death, as a result of an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment? (2) Wa.s the injury received in the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland and of the State Industriaf Accident Commission?

The defendants submitted the following questions: (1) Did George H. Hoffman come to his death by drowning ? and (2) ' Did the 'State Industrial Accident Commission have jurisdiction to pass an award in favor of the claimant in this case ? ⁷⁶ The defendants’ first and second questions, and the claimant’s second question, were refused, but the claimant’s first question was granted and submitted to the jury. To the submission of the first question to the jury, the defendants filed a special exception, on the grounds that, first, it does not submit the question of jurisdiction fairly to the jury; second, it is misleading and does not present the question of admiralty jurisdiction. And to the second question: the boundaries of the State of Maryland are immaterial and misleading. This exception was overruled as to question one and sustained as to question two.

The action of the court in refusing to submit to the jury the defendants’ first and second questions, and in submitting to the jury the claimant’s first question, and in refusing the defendants’ first and only prayer, constitute the defendants’ second exception. There was no