Stewart v. SS RICHMOND, 5509-B.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5509-B.,5509-B. |
| Citation | 214 F. Supp. 135 |
| Parties | Robert R. STEWART v. S.S. RICHMOND, etc., and Albatross Shipping Corporation. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Kierr & Gainsburgh, Samuel C. Gainsburgh, Theodore J. Pfister, Jr., New Orleans, La., for libellant.
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Hopkins, James G. Burke, Jr., New Orleans, La., for respondent.
This cause having come on for hearing on a former day on libellant's motion for partial summary judgment for payment of maintenance and damages for failure to pay maintenance, and
The Court, having considered the pleadings, documents and depositions in evidence, and the arguments of counsel, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
This Court has jurisdiction of this matter under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court through the seizure of the Steamship RICHMOND and the appearance of the respondent, Albatross Shipping Corporation. Libellant, Stewart, was formerly a seaman aboard the SS RICHMOND and he was injured in the course of his duties. At the termination of the voyage he presented himself to the Public Health Service Hospital in New Orleans where he has been an out-patient continuously since August 26, 1962. Libellant presented his Medical Report of Duty Status to respondent and received maintenance, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, in the amount of $8.00 per day through October 23, 1962. Thereafter, in spite of libellant's continuing to present his Medical Report of Duty Status which continuously reported him as unfit for duty, respondent refused to pay maintenance to libellant. Respondent claims that this was due to an investigation of the maintenance claim which began after October 23, 1962. On November 2, 1962, libellant retained counsel who filed this action. Libellant, personally and through his proctor, has continuously demanded payment of maintenance, but respondent has continuously refused to pay it. This motion seeks partial summary judgment on two of the three claims made by libellant, i. e. payment of maintenance and damages for willful failure to pay maintenance.
The documents and evidence submitted by libellant and undenied by respondent indicate that libellant had not reached maximum cure on January 16, 1963; that he was examined by Dr. Daniel C. Riordan, a doctor of respondent's choice on December 14, 1962, who submitted a report on January 3, 1963, stating that libellant was not fit for duty; that libellant has diligently prosecuted his claim for maintenance; that libellant was reduced to virtual beggary through lack of funds; that libellant, along with his wife and six children were threatened with eviction; that respondent has offered no just reason for failure to pay maintenance; and that libellant is entitled to maintenance through January 16, 1963, in the amount of $680.00.
The law is clear that a seaman is entitled to be paid maintenance by his employer for injuries sustained in the service of his ship until such time as he reaches maximum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nice v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
...There is an affirmative duty on a shipowner to investigate a claim for maintenance with "reasonable diligence." Stewart v. S.S. Richmond, 214 F.Supp. 135, 136 (E.D.La.1963). Furthermore, "when there is substantial evidence that a shipowner is dilatory in making such an investigation or if i......
-
Hudspeth v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
...a claim which they would have found to have merit" and "was arbitrary and unreasonable" in its refusal to pay, Stewart v. S. S. Richmond, E.D.La.1963, 214 F. Supp. 135, or that the owner had "no reasonable excuse" for its refusal, Sims v. Marine Catering Service, E.D.La.1963, 217 F.Supp. 51......
-
Springle v. Cottrell Engineering Corp.
...388 F.Supp. 233 (W.D.Pa., 1974) with two older decisions from Louisiana, both authored by the same District judge Stewart v. S.S. Richmond, 214 F.Supp. 135 (E.D.La., 1963), Appeal dismissed, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir., 1964); Sims v. Marine Catering Service, Inc., 217 F.Supp. 511 (D.La., 1963).......
-
Robinson v. Pocahontas, Inc., 71-1256.
...303 F.Supp. 980, 989 (E.D.La. 1969); Roberson v. S/S American Builder, 265 F.Supp. 794, 800 (E.D.Va. 1967); Stewart v. S.S. Richmond, 214 F.Supp. 135, 136-137 (E.D.La.1963). The answer to Sea Coast's further argument that the right to maintenance is essentially a contractual right and that ......