Keefe v. American Pac. SS Co., 14299.
Decision Date | 19 February 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 14299.,14299. |
Citation | 110 F. Supp. 853 |
Parties | KEEFE v. AMERICAN PAC. S. S. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Herbert Resner, Los Angeles, Cal., for libelant.
Dan Brennan (of Overton, Lyman, Prince & Vermille), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
The facts of this case are relatively simple. The dispute arises in application of well-established principles of maritime law thereto.
On November 5, 1951, at the Port of San Pedro, California, libelant signed written articles to serve aboard the U.S.N.S. Millicoma in the capacity of oiler at base wages of $241 per month for a voyage not to exceed twelve calendar months. He signed articles, entered upon duty and rendered deck service while the vessel was still tied to the wharf at that Port. Before it left the Port upon the contemplated voyage but after the signing of the articles and after the entry upon his duties, libelant was injured while driving away from the vessel on a personal mission. He was provided hospitalization and medical care so there is no claim on this account. Although he has received his cure, he asks for maintenance during the period of his disability. Both parties conceded that if he is entitled to this, that a period of 172 days is the appropriate time period. The voyage was actually un-undertaken by the vessel and was still in progress at the time this action was commenced. It is noted that the voyage was for a period of twelve months and that before the twelve-month period had ended, libelant, having become fit for duty, shipped out on another vessel on May 19, 1952. He claims wages until that date. Although many shipowners in this area had entered into a contract with the appropriate Maritime Union fixing a maintenance rate, the respondent shipowner was not a party to that or any contract on this subject.
It is now settled law that a seaman injured ashore while a crew member of a vessel is injured in the vessel's service. Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 1942, 318 U.S. 724, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107; Farrell v. United States, 1948, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed. 850; Warren v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 523, 71 S.Ct. 432, 95 L.Ed. 503; Ellis v. American Hawaiian S. S. Co., 9 Cir., 165 F.2d 999, 1948 A.M.C. 707; Kyriakos v. Goulandris, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 132, 1945 A.M.C. 1041; Nowery v. Smith, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 732, 1947 A.M.C. 756; Moss v. Alaska Packers Ass'n, 70 Cal.App.2d Supp. 857, 160 P.2d 224, 1945 A.M.C. 493; Stanley v. Weyerhaeuser, S. S. Co. (Superior Court., Calif. San Francisco) 1947 A.M.C. 411; Shipowners' Liability Convention of September 29, 1939, 54 Stat. 1693.
In Norris, "The Law of Seamen", Vol. II, 168, the author discusses the meaning of the phrase "in the service of the ship" and says:
It appears that wages and maintenance have been allowed where the seaman was injured in a barroom altercation, Aguilar and Moss cases above cited, and when assaulted as in the Kyriakos case, supra, as well as in a diving accident suffered while engaged in recreation ashore as in the Ellis case, supra, and in a fall from a balcony while ashore as in the Warren case, supra. The Court sees no distinction in principle between the suffering of an injury in a private automobile accident and in the various cases cited. There is no suggestion of misconduct on the part of libelant. The voyage has outlasted libelant's disability. The Court awards him maintenance for 172 days, being the agreed period of his disability. The parties are in active dispute as to the rate of maintenance. Respondent claims that it should be $4 a day. This claim is based upon a contention that this sum of money is adequate to provide room and lodging ashore for a seaman. There has not been any evidence to that effect. Libelant insists upon $8 per day upon the basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Padilla v. Maersk Line, Ltd.
...amount of overtime was uncertain, and hence any inclusion of such would have been purely speculative"), and Keefe v. American Pac. S.S. Co., 110 F.Supp. 853, 856 (S.D.Cal.1953) (finding plaintiff not entitied to overtime he would have earned had he actually gone on voyage because "[a]ctual ......
-
Hudspeth v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
...v. Universe Tankships Inc., 2d Cir. 1960, 279 F.2d 911. 19 Edelman, Maritime Injury and Death, p. 13. 20 Keefe v. America Pacific S/S Co., S.D. Cal.1953, 110 F.Supp. 853. 21 Curd v. United States, E.D.La.1954, 118 F.Supp. 921. 22 Yates v. Dann, Del.1954, 124 F.Supp. 125. 23 See, for example......
-
Flores v. Carnival Cruise Lines
...overtime was uncertain, and hence any inclusion of such would have been purely speculative." Id. at 40 (citing Keefe v. American Pac. S.S. Co., 110 F.Supp. 853, 856 (S.D.Cal.1953) (denying overtime to seaman because "[a]ctual earning of overtime was an event which might or might not occur. ......
-
Grove v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
...v. Centennial Queen, 185 F.Supp. 552 (D.Or.1960); Fuentes v. Panama Canal Co., 146 F.Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y.1956); Keefe v. American Pac. S.S. Co., 110 F.Supp. 853 (S.D.Cal.1953); Logue v. United States, et al., 85 F.Supp. 805 (S.D.N.Y.1949). Thus, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argu......