From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salas Mojica v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Company

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Mar 4, 1974
492 F.2d 904 (1st Cir. 1974)

Summary

holding that PRWACA provides exclusive remedy for a worker injured on a tug against his employer, the tug owner

Summary of this case from Rosario v. Crowley P.R. Servs., Inc.

Opinion

No. 73-1027.

Argued February 6, 1974.

Decided March 4, 1974.

Harry A. Ezratty, San Juan, P.R., for appellant.

Manuel Gonzalez Gierbolini, San Juan, P.R., for appellee.

Appeal from the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.


Appellant sustained injuries while working aboard a tug in the harbor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. The owner of the tug was insured under the Puerto Rico Workmen's Accident Compensation Act, 11 L.P.R.A. § 21. His action against his employer for damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law was dismissed. 357 F. Supp. 339 (D.P.R. 1972). Section 21 of Puerto Rico's Act provides in part: "When an employer insures his workmen or employees in accordance with this chapter, the right herein established to obtain compensation shall be the only remedy against the employer; . . ." In view of that language and the intent of Congress to apply United States maritime law only in the absence of inconsistent Puerto Rico legislation, we have repeatedly held that the Workmen's Accident Compensation Act, and not federal maritime law, is the exclusive remedy in suits against an insured employer for injuries sustained in the course of employment. See, e. g., Alcoa Steamship Co. v. Perez Rodriguez, 376 F.2d 35 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 215, 19 L.Ed.2d 219 (1967); Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Rodriguez, 290 F.2d 175 (1st Cir. 1961); Fonseca Flores v. Prann, 282 F.2d 153 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 365 U.S. 860, 81 S.Ct. 826, 5 L.Ed. 2d 822 (1960).

The mere fact that the employer and owner of the tug, a Puerto Rico corporation, was a wholly owned subsidiary of a mainland corporation is not controlling. Cf. Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953). Nothing in the Supreme Court's approach to shipboard injuries sustained by foreign seamen aboard foreign vessels in American territorial waters, see Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306,

90 S.Ct. 1731, 26 L.Ed.2d 252 (1970), is inconsistent with our previous rulings concerning claims against insured employers resulting from shipboard accidents taking place within Puerto Rico territorial waters.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Salas Mojica v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Company

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Mar 4, 1974
492 F.2d 904 (1st Cir. 1974)

holding that PRWACA provides exclusive remedy for a worker injured on a tug against his employer, the tug owner

Summary of this case from Rosario v. Crowley P.R. Servs., Inc.
Case details for

Salas Mojica v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Company

Case Details

Full title:EMILIO SALAS MOJICA, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT, v. PUERTO RICO LIGHTERAGE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Mar 4, 1974

Citations

492 F.2d 904 (1st Cir. 1974)

Citing Cases

Manuel Caceres v. San Juan Barge Company

This court has discussed the relationship between federal maritime law, including the Jones Act, and the…

Construction Aggregates v. Rivera de Vicenty

Beyond that it also raises complicated federal abstention questions. See, e. g., Mojica v. Puerto Rico…