Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Company

Decision Date10 June 1963
Docket NumberNo. 463,463
Citation83 S.Ct. 1646,10 L.Ed.2d 720,374 U.S. 16
PartiesThomas I. FITZGERALD, Public Administrator of the County of New York, etc., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Theodore H. Friedman, New York City, for petitioner.

Matthew L. Danahar, New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Andres San Martin, a seaman, brought this action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the respondent United States Lines Company. His complaint alleged that he had twisted and strained his back while working for respondent on its ship. He claimed $75,000 damages based on the negligence of respondent and on the unseaworthiness of the ship and $10,000 based on respondent's failure to provide him with medical attention, maintenance and cure, and wages as required by law.1 Martin's negligence claim invoked a remedy created by Congress in § 33 of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, which explicitly provides that a seaman can have a jury trial as of right; but the actions for unseaworthiness and for maintenance and cure are traditional admiralty remedies which in the absence of a statute do not ordinarily require trial by jury. The complainant here did demand a jury, however, for all the issues growing out of the single accident. The trial judge granted a jury trial for the Jones Act and the unseaworthiness issues but held the question of recovery under maintenance and cure in abeyance to try himself after jury trial of the other two issues. The jury returned a verdict for United States Lines on the negligence and unseaworthiness issues; the court then, after hearing testimony in addition to that presented to the jury, awarded Martin $224 for maintenance and cure. Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, four judges stating that it would be improper to submit a maintenance and cure claim to the jury, two believing it to be permissible but not required, and three maintaining that a seaman is entitled, as of right, to a jury trial of a maintenance and cure claim joined with a Jones Act claim. 2 Cir., 306 F.2d 461. The lower courts are at odds on this issue.2 We granted certiorari to decide it.3 371 U.S. 932, 83 S.Ct. 307, 9 L.Ed.2d 269.

For years it has been a common, although not uniform,4 practice of District Courts to grant jury trials to plaintiffs who join in one complaint their Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure claims when all the claims, as here, grow out of a single transaction or accident.5 This practice of requiring issues arising out of a single accident to be tried by a single tribunal is by no means surprising. Although remedies for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure have different origins and may on occasion call for application of slightly different principles and procedures, they nevertheless, when based on one unitary set of circumstances, serve the same purpose of indemnifying a seaman for damages caused by injury, depend in large part upon the same evidence, and involve some identical elements of recovery. Requiring a sea- man to split up his lawsuit, submitting part of it to a jury and part to a judge, unduly complicates and confuses a trial, creates difficulties in applying doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and can easily result in too much or too little recovery.6 The problems are particularly acute in determining the amount of damages. For example, all lost earnings and medical expenses are recoverable on a negligence count, but under the Jones Act they are subject to reduction by the jury if the seaman has been contributorily negligent. These same items are recoverable in part on the maintenance and cure count, but the damages are measured by different standards 7 and are not subject to reduction for any contributory negligence. It is extremely difficult for a judge in trying a maintenance and cure claim to ascertain, even with the use of special interrogatories, exactly what went into the damages awarded by a jury—how loss of earning power was calculated, how much was allowed for medical expenses and pain and suffering, how much was allowed for actual lost wages, and how much, if any, each of the recoveries was reduced by contributory negligence. This raises needless problems of two has the burden of proving exactly what the jury did.8 And even if the judge can find out what elements of damage the jury's verdict actually represented, he must still try to solve the puzzling problem of the bearing the jury's verdict should have on recovery under the different standards of the maintenance and cure claim. In the absence of some statutory or constitutional obstacle, an end should be put to such an unfortunate, outdated, and wasteful manner of trying these cases.9 Fortunately, there is no such obstacle.

While this Court has held that the Seventh Amendment does not require jury trials in admiralty cases,10 neither that Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution forbids them.11 Nor does any statute of Congress or Rule of Procedure, Civil or Admiralty, forbid jury trials in maritime cases. Article III of the Constitution vested in the federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases, and, since that time, the Congress has largely left to this Court the responsibility for fashioning the controlling rules of admiralty law. This Court has long recognized its power and responsibility in this area and has exercised that power where necessary to do so.12 Where, as here, a particular mode of trial being used by many judges is so cumbersome, confusing, and time consuming that it places completely unnecessary obstacles in the paths of litigants seeking justice in our courts, we should not and do not hesitate to take action to correct the situation. Only one trier of fact should be used for the trial of what is essentially one lawsuit to settle one claim split conceptually into separate parts because of historical developments. And since Congress in the Jones Act has declared that the negligence part of the claim shall be tried by a jury, we would not be free, even if we wished, to require submission of all the claims to the judge alone. Therefore, the jury, a time-honored institution in our jurisprudence, is the only tribunal competent under the present congressional enactment to try all the claims. Accordingly, we hold that a maintenance and cure claim joined with a Jones Act claim must be submitted to the jury when both arise out of one set of facts. The seaman in this case was therefore entitled to a jury trial as of right on his maintenance and cure claim.

Judgment against the seaman on the Jones Act claim was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and we declined to review it on certiorari. The shipowner points out that on remand the maintenance and cure claim would no longer be joined with a Jones Act claim and therefore, he argues, could be tried by a judge without a jury. We cannot agree. Our holding is that it was error to deprive the seaman of the jury trial he demanded, and he is entitled to relief from this error by having the kind of trial he would have had in the absence of error.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice HARLAN (dissenting).

I am wholly in sympathy with the result reached by the Court. It is, I believe, a result that is consistent with sound judicial administration and that will greatly simplify the conduct of suits in which a claim for maintenance and cure is joined with a Jones Act claim arising out of the same set of facts.

But the rule that the Court announces is in my view entirely procedural in character, and the manner in which such rules must be promulgated has been specified by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 2073. This statute provides that rules of procedure in admiralty

'shall not take effect until they have been reported to Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the beginning of a regular session thereof * * * and until the expiration of ninety days after they have been thus reported.'

Believing that we are governed by this provision, and that the method there prescribed for the declaration of procedural rules, which are to be applicable in all Federal District Courts, is exclusive, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the Court.* I think the appropriate way to achieve what in this instance is obviously a desirable procedural reform is to deal with the matter through the Judicial Conference of the United States. Cf. Miner v. Atlass, 363 U.S. 641, 80 S.Ct. 1300, 4 L.Ed.2d 1462. Meanwhile, substantially for the reasons given in Judge Friendly's opinion, I consider that the judgment below must be affirmed.

1 Martin died while his appeal was pending and a public administrator was substituted for him.

2 See notes 4 and 5, infra.

3 Because of our limited grant of certiorari, we do not consider petitioner's argument that the complaint and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
357 cases
  • Solet v. M/V CAPT. HV DUFRENE, Civ. A. No. 67-1713.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • August 19, 1969
    ...and cure is, of course, not subject to reduction because of Solet's contributory negligence. Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 1963, 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720. The Clerk is therefore directed to enter judgment for maintenance and cure in rem against the M/V CAPT. H. V.......
  • Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1970
    ...nonstatutory maritime actions for wrongful death, which might come before state or federal juries. Cf. Fitzgerald v. United States Lines, 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963). However, that is not the case. The only discussion of exclusive jurisdiction in the legislative histor......
  • Texas Industries, Inc v. Radcliff Materials, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1981
    ...Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2753, 61 L.Ed.2d 521 (1979); Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963). 15 Congress assumed the courts would refer to the existing law of monopolies and restraints on trade. ......
  • Northwest Airlines, Inc v. Transport Workers Union of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1981
    ...the federal courts as a proper basis for the development of judge-made rules of maritime law. See Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 20-21, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 1650, 10 L.Ed.2d 720.35 Because "the Congress has largely left to this Court the responsibility for fashioning the cont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • There Is Another: Admiralty Jurisdiction And Jury Trials Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1873
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 31, 2023
    ...from both, as well as to the system of laws determining them as the manner of trial[.]"). 4. See e.g., Fitzgerald v. U. S. Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 20-21 (1963) ("Congress in the Jones Act has declared that the negligence part of the claim shall be tried by a 5. 28 U.S.C. ' 1873. 6. The Gene......
3 books & journal articles
  • Final trial preparation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...(Fed. Cir. 2005)); §11:40 Preparing for Trial in Federal Court 11- 766 • Admiralty/maritime law claims ( see Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines, 374 U.S. 16 (1963)); • Naturalization/deportation ( see Luria v. U.S. , 231 U.S. 9 (1913); Lee v. U.S. , 25 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1928)); • Lawsuits against th......
  • CHAPTER 15
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...origins and may on occasion call for application of slightly different principles and procedures.” Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 18 (1963); see also Peterson, 278 U.S., at 138, 139 (emphasizing that a seaman’s action for maintenance and cure is “independent” and “cumul......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...Co. , 174 F.R.D. 587 (D.N.J. 1997), §3:12 Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp., 882 F.Supp. 1433 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), §7:85 Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines, 374 U.S. 16 (1963), §11:39 Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co, 314 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1963), Form 7-10 Fleishman v. Prudential-Bache ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT