Cruz v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 65 Civ. 2895.,65 Civ. 2895. |
| Citation | 310 F. Supp. 1364 |
| Parties | Alejandro CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN LINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Abraham E. Freedman, New York City, for plaintiff; C. Sovel, S. B. Gruber, New York City, of counsel.
Dougherty, Ryan, Mahoney, Pellegrino & Giuffra, New York City, for defendant; R. Giuffra, New York City, of counsel.
This is a suit in admiralty commenced by plaintiff under the Jones Act, 46 U.S. C. § 688, to recover damages for injuries sustained while employed aboard the "S. S. FLYING CLIPPER", a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporation. Plaintiff alleged to the Court, sitting without a jury, that his injuries were sustained by reason of the negligence of defendant's agents and the unseaworthiness of its vessel. Post-trial memoranda were submitted by the parties, and, at the Court's request, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were also submitted. Having heard the testimony, examined the record and exhibits, and having carefully considered counsel's supporting briefs and applicable authority, the Court makes the following determinations.
Findings of Fact.
1. Plaintiff is an American seaman.
2. Defendant is a corporation engaged in the steamship business with an office and principal place of business in New York City.
3. Defendant owned and operated the S.S. FLYING CLIPPER at all times relevant herein.
4. On the 10th of April, 1965, plaintiff "signed-on" defendant's vessel as an able-bodied seaman. He was employed in this capacity for three voyages commencing April 10, 1965 and terminating September 3, 1965.
5. Plaintiff took a pre-sign-on physical examination given by defendant's doctor and was found fit for duty.1
6. On August 30, 1965, while the S.S. FLYING CLIPPER was docked in San Juan, Puerto Rico, plaintiff returned to the vessel in an intoxicated condition.
7. Prior to and during the time the alleged injury was sustained, plaintiff was inebriated due to his consumption of large quantities of rum.2
8. After the chief officer found plaintiff in this condition, he went to inform the Master of the situation.
9. The chief officer and Master returned and found Cruz "ranting and raving", irrational and still intoxicated.3
10. Plaintiff was not violent and did not attempt to strike the chief officer or the Master. Neither the Master nor anyone else was threatened by Mr. Cruz.4
11. While under the influence of alcohol, Cruz refused the Master's order to go to the ship's hospital.
12. Upon such refusal, the Master sent the chief officer to get steel handcuffs. The chief officer was then ordered to apply the handcuffs to the plaintiff's wrists.5
13. After the handcuffs were applied, Cruz calmed down and went compliantly to the hospital where he was placed in bed.6
14. He again began to rant and rave, and, in order to contain him, he was shackled to the hospital bunk with an additional pair of handcuffs.7
15. Before manacling plaintiff the Master did not try gentler means of restraint, either chemical or physical, nor did he consult the manual Ship's Medicine Chest and First Aid at Sea.8
16. The Master ordered the chief officer to keep Mr. Cruz under constant surveillance, but made no attempt to see whether this order was carried out.9
17. Cruz was first left alone for fifteen minutes, after which time the chief officer returned for a brief period to observe him.10
18. The chief officer again left plaintiff alone for between 20 and 30 minutes,11 during which time he looked for an ordinary seaman to station as a guard. However, when one was not found, no substitute was sent.12
19. Upon the chief officer's return to the hospital, he noted that the plaintiff's left wrist was red and swollen.13
20. Prior to this time, plaintiff had not complained of injury to his left wrist, nor was any injury observed by the chief mate when he applied the handcuffs.
21. Plaintiff had no previous difficulty with either the Master or the chief officer, and had performed his duties without incident.
22. When the chief officer noticed the condition of Cruz's left wrist, he removed the handcuffs, gave him phenobarbital and returned Cruz to his room.14
23. Plaintiff's injuries were sustained while he was left manacled to the side of the bed without guard or surveillance.15
24. The chief officer and Master had previous experience with intoxicated persons.
25. While plaintiff was in the hospital no other methods of restraint or sedation were used.16
26. The manual Ship's Medicine Chest and First Aid at Sea was not consulted during the entire incident even though it was acknowledged to be the authoritative book put out by the United States Public Health Service.17
27. On September 3, 1965, after docking in New York aboard the S.S. FLYING CLIPPER, plaintiff reported to the United States Public Health Service Outpatient Clinic, where his condition was diagnosed as a displaced fracture of the navicular bone of the left wrist.18
28. Plaintiff was transferred to the United States Public Health Service facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and was disabled until May 3, 1966, when he was declared fit for duty.19
29. The plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and discomfort and limitation of motion as a result of the injury sustained.20
30. The fracture has never united and the plaintiff remains partially, permanently disabled.21
31. Plaintiff has a permanent surgical scar on his left wrist.
32. A displaced fracture of the navicular bone would have been discovered in a pre-sign-on physical examination.22
Considering the wealth of seamen's injury litigation in the federal courts, there is unfortunately a conspicuous lack of authority on the proper treatment and reasonable care to be afforded seamen who become derilect in duty and boisterous in conduct while under the influence of alcohol. Nevertheless, predicated on the facts as I have found them to be, it must be determined whether the manner in which defendant's agents treated Cruz was negligent under the circumstances present, and, if so, whether the injuries sustained by him were reasonably foreseeable and the proximate result of defendant's negligence.
It is undisputed that "the duty to provide proper medical treatment and attendance for seamen falling ill or suffering injury in the service of the ship has been imposed upon the shipowners by all maritime nations." The Iroquois, 194 U.S. 240, 241-242, 24 S.Ct. 640, 48 L.Ed. 955 (1904). In addition, the master of a freight vessel is often deemed to stand in the place of a physician or surgeon. The Iroquois, supra at 242, 24 S.Ct. 640. However, in determining the reasonableness of the care and treatment provided a seaman, special attention should be given to the exigencies presented in each situation. Further, the court should always be mindful of the inherent limitations of shipboard treatment by a non-physician, and before passing judgment on the master's conduct, it should, as far as possible, put itself in the master's place by giving due recognition to the existing circumstances under which the master has acted. See The Iroquois, supra at 243, 24 S.Ct. 640.
There is no doubt that metal restraints may properly be used under certain circumstances. If a seaman wilfully disobeys a lawful command at sea, he may be punished by being placed in irons. 46 U.S.C. § 701. However, a seaman as intoxicated as Cruz could hardly have been capable of wilful disobedience of an order. The testimony offered at trial reveals that Cruz had been drinking heavily for two days prior to the injury, was "ranting and raving", and had just consumed a pint of rum prior to being shackled.23 Such circumstances clearly negate the possibility of producing conscious or wilful disobedience.
Further, if the conduct of a seaman appears to be physically or mortally dangerous to others aboard a vessel, it is obviously justifiable for a captain to place the seaman in irons. In Dantzler v. Defender Shipping Co., 285 F.Supp. 541, 545 (E.D.Pa.1968), aff'd, 411 F.2d 792 (3rd Cir. 1969), plaintiff threatened the life of three seamen and held a knife to the neck of another. The Court properly concluded that a jury could have found the Master's decision to put the plaintiff in leg-irons entirely reasonable under the circumstances. Similar threats of violence are absent from the instant suit.24 In Escandon v. Pan American Foreign Corp., 12 F.Supp. 1006 (S.D.Tex.1935), aff'd, 88 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1937), the district court dismissed a libel for injuries sustained as a result of handcuffing, because the handcuffs were applied as a precautionary measure to prevent plaintiff from injuring or interfering with the crew and vessel and because "no more force was used than libelant made necessary." I find no credible evidence that the S.S. FLYING CLIPPER, its crew or its cargo, were in any danger from plaintiff, which finding is supported by the testimony of the Master of that vessel.25 Further, I find that much more force was used than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
A seaman who, because of inordinate intoxication, becomes uncooperative and boisterous, should not immediately be shackled to a bunk with two sets of irons, and then left unattended. The immediate use of metal handcuffs is unreasonable, and the gravity of this wrong is compounded by leaving the inebriate unattended.
At trial, it was conceded that the Ship's Medicine Chest and First Aid at Sea26 is the authoritative book to be consulted for medical problems,27 and that it is the Master's duty to care for the welfare and safety of his crew.28 This duty, no doubt, includes the care of intoxicated seamen. Assuming that Cruz was suffering from nothing more than acute drunkenness, the initial use of steel handcuffs was unjustified. Although in treating acute drunkenness no specific treatment is prescribed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bednar v. United States Lines, Inc.
...v. Blidberg-Rothchild Co., 195 F. Supp. 420 (E.D.Va.1961), aff'd, 296 F. 2d 554 (4th Cir. 1961); Cruz v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 310 F.Supp. 1364, 1367 (S.D.N.Y.1970). Since, however, the ship's master is not a physician, the courts have treated his duty as one dependent up......