Martin v. West

Citations

• 222 U.S. 191
• 32 S. Ct. 42
• 56 L. Ed. 159
• 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1773

Syllabus

<p>Whether a state statute providing remedies for damages to property within the State includes thosé to specified classes of property is for the state court to determine, and this court accepts the construction so given. The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354.</p> <p>Whether a tort be maritime or non-maritime must be determined by the character and locality of the injured thing at the time the tort was committed, and subsequent facts as to location furnish no criterion. Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388.</p> <p>Where a vessel by its own fault collides with and injures a bridge which is essentially a land structure and which is maintained and used as,an aid to commerce on land, the tort is non-maritime.</p> <p>The remedy for a non-maritime tort provided by the state statute can be pursued in the state court against the vessel committing it, even though the statute gives a lien on the vessel.</p> <p>When the interruption of interstate commerce by reason of the enforcement of a state statute otherwise constitutional is incidental only, it will not render the statute unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution.</p> <p>A state statute which gives a lien upon all vessels, whether domestic or foreign and whether engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce, for injuries committed to persons and property within the State and providing that the lien for non-maritime torts be enforced in the state courts and which, is not in conflict with any act of Congress, does not offend the commerce clause of the Constitution because it incidentally affects the use of a vessel engaged in interstate commerce; and so held as to §§ 5953 and 5954 of the Code of the State of Washington.</p> <p>51 Washington, 85, affirmed.</p>