Hunt v. The Trawler Brighton, 51-31.
| Citation | 102 F. Supp. 300 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 51-31.,51-31. |
| Parties | HUNT v. THE TRAWLER BRIGHTON, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Morris D. Katz, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
Libelant in this suit seeks to recover maintenance and cure for the period during which he was disabled following an injury received on February 6, 1951. The important question is whether, at the time of his accident, libelant was in the service of the respondent's ship.
Sometime in December, 1950, libelant, who has been for several years a fisherman on vessels sailing from Boston, was asked by the mate and later by the captain of the trawler Brighton, owned by the respondent, if he wished to make a trip with them. As a result, he went on that trip and also for two or three more consecutive trips with the same trawler, working as a deck hand and fisherman.
The last of these trips ended on the morning of February 5, 1951. After finishing his work at the vessel, libelant spent the remainder of the day visiting with his aunt, and in the late afternoon returned to his room in a lodging house in Dorchester. He went to bed about 7 p. m., and slept until about 2 a. m., on February 6. He then got up and left the house, intending to go to a restaurant for a meal. Shortly after reaching the sidewalk he fell and injured his leg. He was able to hobble back to the house and in the morning was treated by a doctor. He asked another roomer in the house, also a fisherman, to notify the captain of the vessel he would be unable to report for the next trip. On February 7, he went to the Marine Hospital in Brighton and was admitted as a patient. It was discovered that a bone of the leg had been broken. He remained at the hospital until February 19, and thereafter returned six times for outpatient treatment. Libelant traveled to and from the hospital by taxicab, at a cost of two dollars per trip each way. The last of these visits was on May 14, 1951, when he was discharged fit for duty. On or about June 1, 1951, he went to work on another vessel as a fisherman.
From the evidence, it appears that it is the practice among the fishing vessels working out of Boston for the vessel to remain tied up at the dock for forty-eight hours after each trip before starting on the next trip. Members of the crew are ordinarily free to take this period as shore leave, leaving the vessel and going about their own affairs. Captain Magnuson of the Brighton testified that they could be called upon to perform such work as mending nets during this period, although he did not in fact call upon members of his crew to do this except at the time of the annual overhauling of the vessel. A crew member could terminate his employment with the vessel by notifying the captain he did not intend to go on the next trip, or simply by failing to report in time to make the trip, and he could be discharged by the captain before the start of each new trip. A crew member who had a "steady site" continued to make each trip with the vessel until he quit or was discharged. No one, not even the captain, appears to have any written contract of employment for any definite term.
There is no doubt that libelant was, at the time of his injury, a seaman and a member of the crew of the trawler Brighton. After his original conversation with the mate and the captain he had made at least three successive trips, working as a deck hand and fisherman, and receiving the share of the proceeds of each trip due to a member of the crew. There had been no further discussion of his employment. He had reported for each succeeding voyage. Up to the time of his accident he had not been discharged and had done nothing to terminate his employment. Respondent in its answer to libelant's interrogatory No. 7 says it does not claim there was a separate contract of employment for each trip. He must be considered as having been employed on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saco v. Tug Tucana Corp.
...for mileage and expenses of his wife in transporting him to various hospitals) (emphasis added); Hunt v. The Trawler Brighton, Inc., 102 F.Supp. 300, 302 (D.Mass.1952) (seaman "entitled to recover ... the cost of transportation to and from the hospital for outpatient treatment"); Robert For......
-
Daughdrill v. DIAMOND" M" DRILLING COMPANY
...have been entitled to maintenance and cure; Warren v. United States, supra; Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., supra; Hunt v. Trawler Brighton, Inc., 102 F.Supp. 300 (D.C.Mass., 1952); German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 169 F.2d 715 (3rd Cir., 1948); Rowald v. Cargo Carriers, Inc., 243 F.Su......
-
Blanco v. The SS Tracy
...93 L. Ed. 850, and particularly German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 715, and Hunt v. The Trawler Brighton, Inc., D.C.Mass.1952, 102 F.Supp. 300. However, the "shore leave" cases are all instances in which there was found to be in existence a contract of emp......
-
Macedo v. F/V Paul & Michelle
...fishermen are not "blue water" seamen, defendant is trying to reverse history as well as factual findings. See Hunt v. The Trawler Brighton, Inc., 102 F.Supp. 300 (D.Mass.1952); cf. Keeping v. Dawson, 262 F.2d 868, 870-71 (1st Cir.1959) (Hunt distinguished because plaintiff not on The amoun......