Holt v. Cummings
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | Holt <I>v.</I> Cummings. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1883, No. 47.
Walter George Smith (Francis Rawle with him), for the plaintiffs in error.—While it may be doubted whether the ancient maritime law applicable to seamen applies to this case, we admit it was proper that the injured engineer should receive medical attendance; but his right does not extend to refusing to stay on board the vessel, or to go to a hospital, and to elect to go to his own home and require the vessel owner to pay the expenses of his treatment there. The Acts of Congress (Rev. St. U. S. §§ 4585, 4803), provide for the case, and although there is no "marine hospital" in Philadelphia, the local hospitals receive injured seamen, on a permit from the collector of the port, for gratuitous treatment. Such treatment was offered to and refused by Harrigan, and under these circumstances the ship-owners are not responsible for the expenses of his cure: Horan v. Gordon, 2 Mason 541; The Brig George, 1 Sumner 151; Pierce v. The Enterprise, 1 Gilpin 438; Holmes v. Hutchinson, Id. 448; Walton v. The Neptune, 1 Peters Adm. 142, 152; Richardson v. Juillette, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 23.
Henry C. Loughlin (Jos. P. Kennedy with him), for the defendant in error.—At common law, the liability of the owner of the vessel for medical attendance to sick seamen is well settled, and it is immaterial that the sickness occurs at the home port: 2 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 81; Desty's Shipping and Admiralty, sec. 154; The Nimrod, 1 Ware 19; Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sumn. 195; The Atlantic, Abb. Adm. 451; Ringgold v. Crocker, Abb. Adm. 334.
The engineer of a tug-boat is entitled to all the rights of a seaman: The Sultana, 1 Brown 13; Wilson v. Ohio, Gilpin 505; The Caleb, 9 Ben. 159; The Hudson, 8 Fed. Rep. 167; In re North America, 5 Ben. 486; Allen v. Hallet, Abb. Adm. 576; Gurney v. Crockett, Id. 490; Trainer v. The Superior, Gilp. 514; The Ocean Spray, 4 Sawyer 105; The Minna, 11 Fed. Rep. 759.
The Acts of Congress cited by the plaintiffs in error have not affected the common law liability: Curtis on Rights of Seamen 117; 2 Parsons on Shipping 80; Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sumn. 200; Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason 548. Those Acts, being in the nature of a supplemental remedy to seamen, should be liberally construed, and cannot deprive them, by implication, of a more extensive legal remedy. It is not shown that the physician in this case had any notice of the alleged offer to send the injured man to a hospital, and of its refusal. He was originally employed by the captain, and continued his services on the faith of the owner's liability, and never received notice to discontinue his services.
It is a general and well-established principle, affecting the rights and responsibilities of seamen, that the shipping contract, excepting as it may be modified by express stipulation, includes the provisions of the law maritime; made to be performed upon the highway of the seas, it must be read in the light of that peculiar system of law, which particularly relates to the affairs of the sea: The Atlantic, 1 Abbott's Adm. 476; The Crusader, Ware 448; Jameson v. The Regulus, 1 Pet. Adm. Rep. 212; Curtis on Merch. Seam. 106. This system was referred to, as it was then understood, in the second section of the third article of the constitution of the United States, and, thus adopted, it became the basis of the maritime law of the United States, and operates uniformly throughout the country: The Lottawanna, 21 Wallace 558. Whilst, however, the maritime law of the United States is thus founded upon the general law maritime, as a basis, so far as unaffected by legislation, it depends, in some respects, upon what has been received as law and in the maritime usages of this country, as minor provisions vary somewhat in different countries, according to the type and genius of the government in which it is applied. This branch of the law, although peculiarly within the cognizance of courts invested with maritime jurisdiction, may be referred to in all our courts on maritime questions, as in general the courts of common law have concurrent jurisdiction with the admiralty in those cases which are promoted on the instance side of the latter court.
The right of seamen to be cured of sickness, or any injury received in the ship's service, at the expense of the ship, is a rule regarded in the maritime law as forming part of the contract, and the decisions of the courts of the United States, and of the states, sanction the rule: Laws of Oleron, Art. 7; Laws of Wisbuy, Art. 19; Laws of the Hanse Towns, Art. 39; Jacobsen 144; Abbott on Shipping, 258; Curtis on Merch. Seam. 106, 111; The Atlantic, 1 Abbott's Adm. 476; The Brig George, 1 Sumner 151; Reed v. Canfield, Ibd. 195; Holmes v. Hutchinson, Gilpin 447; Pierce v. Patton, Ibid. 435; Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason 541.
John Harrigan was an engineer employed by the plaintiffs in error upon the tug-boat J. B. Woodward. The home port of this tug was Philadelphia. As to the extent of the voyages made by it, we are not informed. It is stated upon the one side that they rarely exceeded four hours; on the other, that they extended to ports on the Chesapeake and the Atlantic coast. If either statement be correct, we are inclined to believe that, under the decisions of our courts, this was a maritime service. A maritime contract is defined to be "one which relates to the business of navigation upon the sea, or to business appertaining to commerce or navigation, to be transacted or done upon the sea or in seaports:" 2 Bouvier 154. Contracts relating to the inter-state navigation of our inland lakes and great rivers, are not, in a strict sense, maritime contracts, but they are within the admiralty jurisdiction, to the same extent as though they were arms of the sea, and subject to tidal influences: The Propeller, Genesee Chief, 12 Howard 443; Fretz' Appeal, Ibid. 466. Thus, therefore, navigable rivers, where the tides of the sea ebb and flow, are clearly within the admiralty jurisdiction: Smith v. The Pekin, 1 Gilpin 203; Wilson v. The Ohio, Ibid. 505.
The peculiar privileges and protection, afforded by the maritime law, are only however secured to seamen. Common sailors only were originally termed seamen, but the rights of seamen, under the rulings of American courts, from time to time, have been extended to the mate, surgeons, stewards, engineers, cooks, clerks, carpenters, firemen, deck-hands, porters, and chambermaids. All these classes of employees have been allowed to sue, in the admiralty, as mariners, or as persons rendering maritime services, under a maritime contract: 1 Peters Adm. 246; 2 Peters Adm. 268; Wilson v. The Ohio, Gilpin 505; 1 Conkl. Adm. 107; 2 Pars. Marit. Law 582; The Sultana, 1 Brown 13; Steam Propeller M. M. Caleb, 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial