Lawson v. Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Co.
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 198 (1949)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
John Davis was employed by Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Company (Suwanee) (plaintiff). Before Davis started working at Suwanee, he lost sight in his right eye in a non-work-related accident. Davis subsequently lost sight in his left eye in a work-related accident during his employment at Suwanee. Davis sought workers’-compensation benefits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (the act). Suwanee agreed that Davis was totally disabled and that Suwanee was responsible for compensating Davis for the loss of sight in his left eye. However, Suwanee asserted that the balance of the payments necessary to compensate Davis for his total disability (i.e., his blindness in both eyes) should come from the statutory second-injury fund administered by the United States Workers’ Compensation Commission (the commission). Lawson, the deputy commissioner of the commission (defendant), concluded that Suwanee was responsible for the full total-disability payments. Suwanee challenged Lawson’s determination in federal district court in Florida. The court reversed Lawson’s determination, concluding that Suwanee was responsible only for partial-disability payments based on the injury to Davis’s left eye and that the balance of the total-disability payments should come from the second-injury fund. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted Lawson’s petition for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.