Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon

Background

In July 1914, an injured worker sued an Indiana construction company and one of its employees in Kentucky state court for damages from a workplace accident. The company had a government contract to build a canal and locks on land the United States had acquired from Kentucky. Most work was on that federal canal reservation, but the company built railroad tracks off the reservation and dumped excavated material on property in Kentucky. The company had named an agent in Kentucky for service of process; the first summons was served while the agent was on federal land, and a later alias summons was served at his home in Louisville.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Kentucky courts had the power to hear the case. The company argued that work under a federal contract or the fact the accident happened on federal land barred state courts, and that service on the agent while on federal land was invalid. The Court disagreed. It found the company did business in Kentucky beyond the federal reservation because the railroad and dumping activity reached state property. That business activity meant the company could be sued in Kentucky. The Court also held the later service at the agent’s home was valid, and that a personal-injury claim is a transitory matter that can be brought where the defendant can be reached.

Real world impact

The practical result is that out-of-state companies doing construction that extends off federal land can be sued in state courts where they do business. Injured workers in similar situations can rely on state court procedures if the company maintains business connections in the state. Because this decision affirms the trial court’s power to proceed, the lawsuit may continue in Kentucky rather than be blocked on jurisdictional grounds.