John F. Harmon v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting Conti as merely suggesting “a simple distinction between ‘traditional railroading tasks’ and ‘traditional maritime tasks’ ” which is too rigid after the 1972 amendments
• no concurrent recovery under two federal statutes, LHWCA and Federal Employer’s Liability Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).