Great Lakes S.S. Co. v. Geiger
| Decision Date | 05 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3313. |
| Citation | 261 F. 275 |
| Parties | GREAT LAKES S.S. CO. V. GEIGER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Thomas H. Garry, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
John A Lombard, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before KNAPPEN and DENISON, Circuit Judges, and McCALL, District judge.
Libelant sued for injuries received while a member of the crew of respondent's steamer engaged in commercial navigation of the Great Lakes. The case, including the facts stipulated for purposes of this review, may be thus sufficiently summarized:
Libelant had been employed under a maritime contract, signing regular articles as a seaman, and shipping at a Lake Erie port for a round trip to the head of Lake Superior and return. In the course of this voyage, while the steamer was unloading cargo in a harbor, and while libelant and other members of the crew were closing the hatches, libelant's finger was caught in the operating mechanism and so crushed that it had to be amputated. The sole cause of the accident was the negligence of other members of the crew working with libelant, but not including the master; the equipment and machinery being sufficient and in good repair and the ship seaworthy. Libelant was immediately taken to a hospital, where the injured finger was amputated and treated, and was then taken to his home in Cleveland on the steamer, being given further medical treatment en route, all at the steamer's cost his entire expense in perfecting a cure, so far as such was possible, having been paid by respondent. [1] Libelant was paid his wages to the end of the voyage; that is, until the return of the steamer to Lake Erie. He was disabled for 13 weeks, which period would expire during the shipping season and while the steamer was still in operation. His expense of maintenance was $10 per week. At the end of this period he obtained other employment at a higher wage than he was earning at the time of the accident. The trial court held that libelant was not entitled to full compensatory damages but only wages and expenses of 'maintenance and cure.' The allowance was $377.14, being three months' wages at the rate libelant was receiving at the time of the accident and maintenance for 13 weeks at $10 per week, with interest from the time when payable. The only issues raised here are whether libelant is entitled to allowance for wages after the end of the voyage and whether interest should be allowed
It is settled that injuries suffered under circumstances such as here presented are maritime in their nature and within the jurisdiction of admiralty, and that under general admiralty law the vessel owner is, broadly speaking, liable only for maintenance, cure, and the wages of a seaman injured in the service of his ship through the sole negligence of members of the crew. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 Sup.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, L.R.A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900; Chelentis v. Luckenback S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 38 Sup.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171. In neither of these cases did the issues require a determination of the period for which wages are recoverable. The question is one of general admiralty law; the right of recovery for maintenance and cure and wages not being created by federal statute.
In the earlier decisions in the United States the extent of the indemnity was not always clearly or completely defined as respects either wages or maintenance and cure. In Harden v. Gordon (1823) 2 Mason, 540, Fed. Cas. No. 6,047, Mr. Justice Story held that by the maritime law the expense of curing a sick seaman in the course of the voyage is a charge on the ship. In Reed v. Canfield (1832) 1 Sumn. 195, Fed. Cas. No. 11,641, the same justice again held an injured seaman entitled to be cured at the ship's expense, but it does not clearly appear whether cure was to be extended beyond the end of the voyage. In Nevitt v.
Clarke (1846) Olcott, 316, Fed. Cas. No. 10,138, Judge Betts held what the right, as to both wages and cure, terminated with the voyage. However, in The Atlantic (1849) 1 Abb.Adm. 451, 480, Fed. Cas. No. 620, the same judge suggested a qualification with respect to cure, where either it had been commenced and 'is in a course of favorable termination,' or the ship had not given due attention to the seaman's necessities, or the case had been improperly treated. In The Ben Flint (1867) 1 Biss. 562, 569, 1 Abbott's U.S. 126, 134, Fed. Cas. No. 1299, Judge Miller held that--
'In the absence of misconduct or neglect on the part of the officers, the obligation of the vessel to provide for a disabled or sick seaman should only be coextensive in duration to that of the seaman to the vessel.'
In the City of Alexandria (D.C. 1883) 17 F. 390, Judge Addison Brown, upon a consideration of the continental codes and numerous decisions, announced the conclusion, as summarized in the headnote, that--
'By the maritime law, ancient and modern, a seaman, in case of any accident received in the service of the ship, is entitled to medical care, nursing, and attendance, and to cure, so far as cure is possible, at the expense of the ship, and to wages to the end of the voyage, and no more.'
The case did not involve the question of cure. In The Natchez, 73 F. 267, 19 C.C.A. 500, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seems to have held that the right to wages terminated with the voyage. These references, which by no means exhaust the subject, are sufficient by way of illustration for present purposes.
In The Osceola (1902) 189 U.S. 158, 175, 23 Sup.Ct. 483, 487 (47 L.Ed. 760), Mr. Justice Brown, upon an elaborate review of the English and American authorities, announced the proposition, among others, that--
'The vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.'
In view of the words 'at least,' and considering other decisions, libelant contends that there is no settled rule as to the period of wage recovery, and thus that courts of admiralty should, 'in the exercise of a sound discretion give or withhold damages according to principles of equity and justice, considering all the circumstances of the case. ' Respondent insists that under well-settled rules recovery after the termination of the voyage is absolutely forbidden. The District Court, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endicott v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
...to the Jones Act because of the long tradition of awarding prejudgment interest in admiralty cases. See, e.g., Great Lakes S.S. Co. v. Geiger, 261 F. 275, 279 (6th Cir.1919) (awarding prejudgment interest on a maritime claim for personal ...
-
Blainey v. American S.S. Co., 91-2274
...which the seamen were no longer obligated to the vessel." Id. at 993. In the district court's view, this court in Great Lakes S.S. Co. v. Geiger, 261 F. 275 (6th Cir.1919), "found that the obligation of the vessel to provide for a disabled or sick seaman should be coextensive in duration wi......
-
Martinez v. Matson SS Co.
...Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L. Ed. 760; Pacific Mail Steamship Company v. Lucas, 9 Cir., 264 F. 938; Great Lakes Steamship Company v. Geiger, 6 Cir., 261 F. 275. The real controversy involved in this appeal is over the item of $350 allowed for maintenance and cure after the end ......
-
Cunnyngham v. Donovan, Civ. A. No. 12287
...v. Erickson, 226 F.2d 475, 484 (9th Cir. 1955); Perez v. Suwanee S.S. Co., 239 F.2d 180, 181 (2d Cir.1956); Great Lakes S.S. Co. v. Geiger, 261 F. 275, 279 (6th Cir.1919). Interest should run at the federal rate of 6 percent allowed in the similar situtation of back wages in NLRB cases. NLR......