User:Tempshill/NCvP
| The Osceola | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 1902 Decided March 2, 1903 | |
| Full case name | The Osceola. |
| Citations | 189 U.S. 158 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | District court entered decree in favor of Shea. Court of appeals certified three questions to US Supreme Court. |
| Holding | |
| Seamen injured or sickened at sea have a general right under maritime law to recover a "maintenance and cure" damage award from the vessel and its owners; and additional damages if the vessel was unseaworthy. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Brown, joined by all |
The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (1903), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held for the first time that seamen who are injured or sickened while at sea have a right under maritime law to recover the costs of their medical care from a vessel and its owners.[1] The Court added that such seamen were allowed to recover additional damages in the case of an unseaworthy ship.
Overview[edit]
Patrick Shea, a seaman aboard a ship called the Osceola, was injured by a falling derrick in December 1896 while following the captain's improper order to raise the ship's gangways while the ship was yet in the open sea. The ship was approaching the port of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the captain had ordered this action prematurely, in order to be able to start unloading cargo immediately upon arrival at the dock.
At this time, there was no federal law in the United States resolving who was responsible for medical payments to sailors who were injured while at sea due to the negligence of the captain. The legislature did not address this issue until the 1920 Jones Act.
Shea filed an in rem case under admiralty law against the ship itself in a federal district court in Wisconsin, alleging that the owners of the ship were liable for injuries caused by any negligent orders of the captain (who was not himself an owner of the ship). Shea won his case in the district court; the owners of The Osceola appealed; and the appeals court certified three questions of law to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting advice and instruction.
Decision[edit]
Justice Brown, for a unanimous Court, wrote that the search for the answer to this question of liability required a review of admiralty law "both at home and abroad", and then required its application while considering "our own legal history, Constitution, legislation, usages, and adjudications."[2] The three possibilities were that the sailor was responsible for his own medical care; that the vessel itself was responsible, and could be held responsible by the sailor via a lien; and that the owners of the vessel were personally responsible.
The Court cited several "ancient Codes" of maritime law, including the Rules of Oleron, which stated that any sailor injured while in the service of the ship must be "cured and provided for at the cost and charges of the said ship", as long as the sailor was not engaged in any misconduct. The Court went on to say that it had found similar provisions in the laws of France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, and Germany, as well as in an 1876 British law.
On the other hand, the Court noted that English judges, under the common law of England, were not currently holding ship owners liable for sailors' injuries caused by the negligence of the captain, under the logic that the captain was treated as "a fellow servant of the owner", and not a proxy for the owners.
As for admiralty court decisions in the United States, the Court noted various contradictory rulings over time.
The Court listed four points that it considered to be already-settled maritime law, upon a full review "of English and American authorities":
- The vessel and her owners are liable for medical expenses for a sickened or wounded sailor, and for wages, as long as the voyage continues;
- The vessel and her owners are liable for an additional indemnity if the ship or its equipment is unseaworthy or not properly maintained;
- The members of the crew, "except, perhaps, the master," are all "fellow servants" and cannot sue for additional payments beyond medical payments, if the injury was caused by the negligence of another member of the crew;
- The injured sailor is allowed to recover medical expenses, but not an additional indemnity, if the injury was the result of the negligence of the master.
References[edit]
- ^ Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. and Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Edgar L. Townsend, Petitioners' brief on the merits, p. 7.
- ^ The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (1903), U.S. Supreme Court.