Vaughan v. Atkinson, 92-6075

Citation369 U.S. 527,82 S.Ct. 997,8 L.Ed.2d 88
Decision Date14 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 323,No. 92-6075,92-6075,323
PartiesClifford VAUGHAN, Petitioner, v. N. J. ATKINSON, etc., et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

See 370 U.S. 965, 82 S.Ct. 1578.

Case below, 90 Md.App. 79, 607 A.2d 921.

Jacob L. Morewitz, Newport News, Va., Burt M. Morewitz, Newport News, Va., on the brief, for petitioner.

Walter B. Martin, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for respondents.

Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

This is a suit in admiralty brought by a seaman to recover (a) maintenance and cure and (b) damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure.1 The District Court, while disallowing the claim for damages, granted maintenance, less any sums earned by the libellant during the period in question. 200 F.Supp. 802. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Chief Judge Sobeloff dissenting. 291 F.2d 813. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 368 U.S. 888, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 87.

Libellant served on respondents'2 vessel from November 26, 1956, to March 2, 1957, when he was discharged on termination of a voyage. On March 7, 1957, he reported to a United States Public Health Service Hospital for examination and was admitted on March 18, 1957, as an inpatient, and treated for suspected tuberculosis. On June 6, 1957, he was discharged to an outpatient status and he remained in that status for over two years. On August 25, 1959, he was notified that he was fit for duty as of August 19, 1959.

The hospital records show a strong probability of active tuberculosis. The Master furnished libellant a certificate to enter the hospital on his discharge, March 2, 1957. Though libellant forwarded to the owner's agent an abstract of his clinical record at the hospital in 1957, the only investigation conducted by them was an interrogation of the Master and Chief Engineer, who stated that the libellant had never complained of any illness during his four months' service. The owner made no effort to make any further investigation of libellant's claim for maintenance and cure, and according to the findings did not bother even to admit or deny the validity of that claim. Nearly two years passed during which libellant was on his own. Ultimately he was required to hire an attorney and sue in the courts to recover maintenance and cure, agreeing to pay the lawyer a 50% contingent fee. Even so, the District Court held that no damages for failure to furnish maintenance and cure had been shown. In its view such damages are payable not for attorney's fees incurred but only when the failure to furnish maintenance and cure caused or agravated the illness or other physical or mental suffering.

The District Court first allowed maintenance at the rate of $8 a day from June 6, 1957, to February 18, 1959. Since libellant during that period had worked as a taxi driver, the District Court ordered that his earnings be deducted from the amount owed by respondents. Subject to that credit, the order also provided that maintenance at $8 per day be continued until such time as the libellant reached the maximum state of recovery. The District Court allowed in addition 6% interest for each week's maintenance unpaid. Subsequently the District Court extended the maintenance to cover the period from March 7, 1957, to March 17, 1957, and from February 18, 1959, through August 25, 1959, these later awards being without interest.

The Court of Appeals denied counsel fees as damages, relying on the conventional rule that in suits for breach of contract the promisee is not allowed that item in computing the damages payable by the promisor. And the Court of Appeals, following Wilson v. United States, 229 F.2d 277, and Perez v. Suwanee S.S. Co., 239 F.2d 180, from the Second Circuit, held that a seaman has the duty to mitigate damages and that since 'the purpose of maintenance and cure is to make the seaman whole,' 'he will get something more than he is entitled to' unless his earnings during the period are deducted. 291 F.2d, at 814, 815.

We disagree with the lower courts on both points.

I.

Equity is no stranger in admiralty; admiralty courts are, indeed, authorized to grant equitable relief. See Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684, 691—692, 70 S.Ct. 861, 866, 94 L.Ed. 1206, where we said, 'We find no restriction upon admiralty by chancery so unrelenting as to bar the grant of any equitable relief even when that relief is subsidiary to issues wholly within admiralty jurisdiction.'

Counsel fees have been awarded in equity actions, as where Negroes were required to bring suit against a labor union to prevent discrimination. Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 4 Cir., 186 F.2d 473, 481. As we stated in Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 164, 59 S.Ct. 777, 779, 83 L.Ed. 1184, allowance of counsel fees and other expenses entailed by litigation, but not included in the ordinary taxable costs regulated by statute, is 'part of the historic equity jurisdiction of the federal courts.' We do not have here that case. Nor do we have the usual problem of what constitutes 'costs' in the conventional sense. Cf. The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377, 19 L.Ed. 463. Our question concerns damages. Counsel fees were allowed in The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362, 379, 6 L.Ed. 111, an admiralty suit where one party was put to expense in recovering demurrage of a vessel wrongfully seized. While failure to give maintenance and cure may give rise to a claim for damages for the suffering and for the physical handicap which follows (The Iroquois, 194 U.S. 240, 24 S.Ct. 640, 48 L.Ed. 955), the recovery may also include 'necessary expenses.' Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 371, 53 S.Ct. 173, 174, 77 L.Ed. 368.

In the instant case respondents were callous in their attitude, making no investigation of libellant's claim and by their silence neither admitting nor denying it. As a result of that recalcitrance, libellant was forced to hire a lawyer and go to court to get what was plainly owed him under laws that are centuries old. The default was willful and persistent. It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of damages suffered for failure to pay maintenance than this one.3

II.

Maintenance and cure is designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship's service; and it extends during the period when he is incapacitated to do a seaman's work and continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery. The policy underlying the duty was summarized in Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 528, 58 S.Ct. 651, 653, 82 L.Ed. 993:

'The reasons underlying the rule, to which reference must be made in defining it, are those enumerated in the classic passage by Mr. Justice Story in Harden v. Gordon, C.C., Fed.Cas.No. 6047: The protection of seamen, who, as a class, are poor, friendless and improvident, from the hazards of illness and abandonment while ill in foreign ports; the inducement to masters and owners to protect the safety and health of seamen while in service; and maintenance of a merchant marine for the commercial service and maritime defense of the nation by inducing men to accept employment in an arduous and perilous service.'

Admiralty courts have been liberal in interpreting this duty 'for the benefit and protection of seamen who are its wards.' Id., at 529, 58 S.Ct. at 654. We noted in Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 730, 63 S.Ct. 930, 933, 934, 87 L.Ed. 1107, that the shipowner's liability for maintenance and cure was among 'the most pervasive' of all and that it was not to be defeated by restrictive distinctions nor 'narrowly confined.' Id., at 735, 63 S.Ct. at 936. When there are ambiguities or doubts, they are resolved in favor of the seaman. Warren v. United States, 340 U.S. 523, 71 S.Ct. 432, 95 L.Ed. 503.

Maintenance and cure differs from rights normally classified as contractual. As Mr. Justice Cardozo said in Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, supra, 371 of 287 U.S., 174 of 53 S.Ct., the duty to provide maintenance and cure4 'is imposed by the law itself as one annexed to the employment. * * * Contractual it is in the sense that it has its source in a relation which is contractual in origin, but given the relation, no agreement is competent to abrogate the incident.'

In Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 68 S.Ct. 391, 92 L.Ed. 468, we held that a seaman who while an outpatient was living on his parents' ranch without cost to himself was not entitled to maintenance payments. There maintenance and cure was wholly provided by others. Here the libellant was on his own for nearly two years and required to work in order to survive. It would be a sorry day for seamen if shipowners, knowing of the claim for maintenance and cure, could disregard it, force the disabled seaman to work, and then evade part or all of their legal obligation by having it reduced by the amount of the sick man's earnings. This would be a dreadful weapon in the hands of unconscionable employers and a plain inducement, as Chief Judge Sobeloff said below (291 F.2d, at 820), to use the withholding of maintenance and cure as a means of forcing sick seamen to go to work when they should be resting, and to make the seamen themselves pay in whole or in part the amounts owing as maintenance and cure. This result is at war with the liberal attitude that heretofore has obtained and with admiralty's tender regard for seamen. We think the view of the Third Circuit (see Yates v. Dann, 223 F.2d 64, 67) is preferable to that of the Second Circuit as expressed in Wilson v. United States and Perez v. Suwanee S.S. Co., supra, and to that of the Fourth Circuit in this case.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the decision of this case.

Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice STEWART, whom Mr. Justice HARLAN joins, dissenting.

I agree with the Court that whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial
709 cases
  • Solet v. M/V CAPT. HV DUFRENE, Civ. A. No. 67-1713.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • August 19, 1969
    ......Atkinson, 1962, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88. .         While Solet's failure to prove ......
  • Puamier v. BARGE BT 1793, Civ. A. No. 12-73-N
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • November 20, 1974
    ...... Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). .         OSC is also ......
  • Stemmle v. Interlake S.S. Co., 15-CV-4937 (ADS)(AYS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • July 27, 2016
    ...... to do a seaman's work and continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery." Vaughan v. Atkinson , 369 U.S. 527, 531, 82 S.Ct. 997, 1000, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962) ; see also Atl. Sounding ......
  • Com. of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, Civ. No. 252-73
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • August 29, 1978
    ......E. g., Vaughan...E. g., Vaughan v. Atkinson......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 15
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...punitive damages awards, in particular, remain available in maintenance and cure actions after the Act’s passage. In Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962), for example, the Court permitted the recovery of attorney’s fees for the “callous” and “willful and persistent” refusal to pay maint......
  • PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN MARITIME BEFORE AND IN THE WAKE OF BATTERTON: THE FUTURE.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...2283. (45) Merry Shipping, 650 F.2d at 624-25. (46) Robinson v. Pocahontas, Inc., 477 F.2d 1048 (1st Cir. 1973). (47) Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (48) Robinson, 477 F.2d at 1051. (49) Holmes v. McDermott, 734 F.2d 1110 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Harper v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 741 F.2d......
  • Admiralty - Robert S. Glenn, Jr., Colin A. Mcrae, and Jessica L. Mcclellan
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 57-4, June 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...Wilderness Soc., 421 U.S. 240, 258-59 (1975) (awarding attorney fees when the losing party has acted in bad faith); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 530-31 (1962); Platoro, Ltd. v. Unidentified Remains of a Vessel, 695 F.2d 893, 906 n.19 (5th Cir. 1983) (awarding fees to an indemnitee in ......
  • Admiralty
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 73-4, June 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...McCorpen v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp, 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968)).65. McCorpen, 396 F.2d at 548.66. Witbart, 860 F. App'x at 176.67. 369 U.S. 527 (1962).68. Witbart, 860 F. App'x at 176 (citing Vaughan, 369 U.S. at 527).69. Id. at 176.70. Id. (citing Vaughan, 369 U.S. at 532-33).71. Id. at ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT