Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Norton, Deputy Commissioner For The Third Compensation District, v. Warner Company

• 1943 • 321 U.S. 565 • Stone Court
In the 1943 case Norton, Deputy Commissioner for the Third Compensation District v. Warner Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Warner Company. The issue at hand was whether an employee's injury sustained during a lunch break on company premises fell under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court held that such injuries did not fall within this act as they were not incurred "in the course of employment". This decision was based on their...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Stone Court
Term: 1943
Docket: 362
321 U.S. 565
64 S. Ct. 747
88 L. Ed. 931
1944 U.S. LEXIS 1218
Argued: Feb 28, 1944

Norton, Deputy Commissioner For The Third Compensation District, v. Warner Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1943 case Norton, Deputy Commissioner for the Third Compensation District v. Warner Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Warner Company. The issue at hand was whether an employee's injury sustained during a lunch break on company premises fell under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court held that such injuries did not fall within this act as they were not incurred "in the course of employment". This decision was based on their interpretation of what constituted 'employment', which according to them should be understood in terms of service or work done for an employer rather than mere presence at a particular location. Therefore, since eating lunch is considered personal business and not part of one’s job duties, any injuries occurring during this time would not be covered by LHWCA.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Norton, Deputy Commissioner for the Third Compensation District v. Warner Company, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of "injury" in Section 2(2) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was too narrow. He contended that it should include any harm or damage to a worker’s physical structure caused by an accident arising out of employment, regardless if there is immediate disability or not. In this case, he believed that Mr. Bichell suffered an injury when his hand was crushed at work even though he continued working after treatment because his ability to earn wages in future had been impaired due to reduced efficiency from pain and discomfort caused by such injury over time which eventually led him to stop working altogether later on.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Mar 27, 1944
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms