92
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43.
the merchandiseforwblch they sue. Such practice is repugnant to the spirit of our jurisprudence, which has always jealonsly guarded the private affairs of litigants from the unnecessary prying of thei.r ad versndes. No precedent can be tound for it either in equity or admiralty."
an thefrcorrespondence, accounts, and book entries relating to
THE
J. F.
CARD.
(Df,strict Oourt, E. D. llHcnigan. May 26, 1890.) ADMJRALTy-SEAMEN-LIABILITY OF SHIP TO SUPPORT AND Ct:l'RE INJURED.
The obligation of a vesdel navigating the lakes to support and cure seamen taken sick or receiving injuries in the service of the ship does not extend beyond the tar. minationof the seaman's contract. and his return to his home or to a marine hospitaL (Syllabus b'I/ the Oourt.
In Admiralty. This was a libel for wages, and IDcney paid for medical attendance, board, and nursing, after libelant had been compelled to leave the vessel by reason of injuries received while in her service. The facts of the case were substantially as follows: Libelant shipped as mate on the schooner J. F. Card, August 24, 1889, at $60 per month wages. He stated his employment was for the remainder of the season, but admitted that he signed shipping articles for a voyage from Detroit to Toledo, thence to Gladstone, thence to Escanaba to load ore, and thence to Erie, the port of destination. The articles themselves were lost. While the vessel was p:ocoorling down Lake Erie, about 10 o'clock in the evening .of. Septemberpfth, with a fresh wind and considerable sea, libelant went 011 top of the cabin to reef the mainsail. The main boom was properly crotohed to prevent its swaying, though it necessarily lifted a. foot or two in the seaway. Libelant, and the seamen aiding him, had got the reef point tied as far as fhe forward end of the cabin, when he attempted to jump down UpOll the deck. He did not take hold of the :boom, butturned around to step down, and while doing this the boom struck him on the elbow and hip, and tbrew him upon the deck.H&" was carried below' at once, where he remained until the vessel. arrived at Erie, the second day after the injury, when a physician was summoned to treat him. He told· the master on the same day that he would have to leave the vessel, and at his request another mate was hired. As soon as possible, he was taken at his own request to the steamer Nyack, and returned to his bome in Detroit. It was conceded that he received his wageS at' the agreed rate until he left the vessel at Erie. His injury appeared to be anintercapsular fracture or a bruise. He claimed in his libel wages to the end of the season, the expenses of his medical attendance, board and .nursing for seven weeks. Stewart O. Van der Marek, for libelant. ll. H. Swan, for respondent.
THE J. F. CARD. BROWN,
98
to the contract of hiring.
J. The most important question of fact in this case relates
Upon the one hand, libelant swears that he was hirad at Detroit on the 23d day of August "until the vessel laid up," or "for the balance of the season," and that the master "understood it so at the time." The wages were to be $60 per month. Upon the other hand, the master swears he hired him for "just as long as we agreed." "I hired him for the trip to go from here to Toledo" at $60 per month. He adds that he usually hires the men for as long as they can agree. About four days after he went on board, and before the vesBel started on her voyage, the master instructed the libelant, who was the mate, to procure the signatures of the sailors to shipping articles for the voyage from Detroit to Toledo; thence to Gladstone; thence to Escanaba to load are; and thence to Erie, the port of destination. These articles were lost, but it was admitted that they would show that libelant's name was signed about the third, instead of being the first, as they naturally would be, he being the mate. Owing to some dispute, either about the rate of wages or the length of the trip, the sailors declined to sign the articles until libelant had signed them; whereupon, in order to induce them to sign the articles, libelant put his own name down the third on the list. Without undertaking to determine whether the articles were binding upon him when the agreement, as sworn to both by him and by the master, was a different one, it is clear that there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of the libelant that his shipment was for the season. My own impression is from the whole testimony that the agreement was indefinite as to time; that there was a mutual understanding that either party might declare the contract at an end if he chose to do so; but, as both parties are agreed that the rate of wages was to be $60 per month, I think that justice will be done hy following the rule laid down by Judge LONGYEAR in the case of The John Martin, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 172, and treating this as an engagement for, at least, one month, with the option on either side of terminating the engagement at the end of the month. . What, then, were the legal obligations of the schooner to the libelant with respect to his injuries? It is too well settled to require a Citation of authorities that a seaman taken sick or receivil}g injuries in the service of the shipis entitled to be treated at the expense of the ship, unless such injuries are received in consequence of his own gross carelessness. and America, but apparently of evThis is not only the law of ery civilized nation possessing a maritime code. The real question in this case is, how long does this obligation remain in force? Does it continue indefinitely, until the seaman is cured, or does it cease upon the completion of the voyage, or of his contract of hiring? If we are to accept the authority of Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sum. 195, as applicable to this case, we should be obliged to hold that the liability continued URtil the cure was complete, "at least so far as the ordinary medical means extend." In this case the injQries were received just as the ship Albion was returning from a whaling cruise, and after she had reached New
ntne·,
llital"Hiooey andi 'lhe\:elie{ aick and·. disaDled not su:' the mtiriti¥e' but were 'tOqt, that the obligation to cure the seanianat the expense of be"yorid the'terminationol the voyage, although 'l1e didrlbt, 'undertake tofix' a 'litnit to it. This opiniori, however, nas: nofbeen received with the deference usually'accorded to the ut(jf Mr. Justice STORY.' His weU-known leaning toward the admiralty' col,irts, ,and, hisbeIlef in the beneficence of their jurisdil>tionandforms, MreHef,may had a certalnirifluence in inducing its aid to cases ri,ot properly within'its purview. Subsequentcases have tended to lifuit the doctrine of Reed v. Canfield, and it is d:6ulJtfu.l if it Can any longer be accepted as law.. 'In Net>itt v. Olarke, 316, 322, Ndge BETTS criticised this caSa, and held that the of seamen to be cured at the expense of the ship continued no longertban the right towages under their contract. "It is manifegt," says he; "that 11 construction of,this law, which should charge owners of vessels with the support of sick crews without limitation of time, would ,be most oppressive in its consequences, if it did not also tend to impairtd a serious degree the maintenance and prosperity of a merchant marine, and thus become a: publicevil." The question was also ered of .the district court of Wisconsin, in The Bm Flint, 1 in which he held the ancient maritime rule applicable to seamen the lakes as well as upon the high seas; but, after a full review pf ,American' cases, came to the conclusion "that, in the absence of misconduct or neglect on the part of the officers, the obligati.onof the vessel tt> provide for disabled or sick seamen should only be co-extensive in duration to that of the seaman to the vessel." He denied the libelant relief for any expenses incurred after his arrival at the port of discharge. The question was again considered by Judge BETTS in the Case of The Atlantic, Abb. Adm. 451, 476, and he adhered to the principle "that a seaman has no claim upon a ship or her owner for the cure of his sickneSS or disabiliti.es after his contract has terminated, and he is returned to his port of shipment or discharge, or has been furnished with means to do so," . The question was also considered by Judge BROWN with his usulil care in The Oity of Alexandria, 17 Fed. Rep. 390, in which he canie to the conc1usiOIfthat "the maritime law affords no sanction for any dailn to 'compensation beyond that already received by the libelant in due medical care andtreatJl?ent, and wages to the end ofthe voya.ge." Of course, if there be any negligence or misconduct on the part of the officers of the vessel, this would furnish a separate ground for action, in which the seaman would recover, not only bis expenses for medical atiendance, etc., but for his personal injuries, as in ordinary cases .Qf he6ligence. .. .. But, whether the case of Reed v. Canfield be considered as correctly deCided or not, it is very evident :that it has no application to the short voyages or trips upon the lakes. The rule was originally adopted {or
'.C6uft ' held'
the: aCts· of congress with respect to
' but. before
the',
had' beett'
THE LOPEZ.
96
the protection of seamen, on long ocean voyages, where they were unaor, if obtainable, usually had no money ble to obtain medical to spend for that purpose. Upon fluch voyages sailors are shipped for many months, and even years, while upon the lakes they are rarely shipped than one or two trips, llJld the whole equipment may be changed for a dozen times in the course of the season. To say that the obligation of the ship extends to the cure of every man of these crews who happens to be taken sick or receives an injury while upon the vessel, no matter howlong the disability :rna,y continue, would be imposing a burden upon vessel owners far beyond that contemplated by the law, or required in the interests of humanity. The court will take judicial notice of the fact that marine hospitals are established at the principal lake ports for the nursing and cure of sailors, which are supported .by deductions from In view, of the fact that there is such 8 hospital here in Detroit, I think that the libelant .cannot charge the owners of this vessel . with the expenses of his mE;idical attendance and b(lard and nursing for the seven weeks following accident, and before the filing ofhis libel. He should have resorted to the, marine hospital, where he would have beEmtreated free of expense to himself and to the owners ,of :t4e ship. I think that full justice will be done him by permitting him to recover his wages for the balance of the month, the amount paid his phy&ician at Erie, and his return fare to Detroitj and for this amount he is entitled to a decree, with costs.
THE LOPEZ. 1 PmPPS
etal. v.
LOPEZ.
(District Court, S. D. AZabama. ADMIRALTY-DECREE PRO CONFESSO.
April 22, 1890.)
to hear the, case ex parte, either airectly, or by reference to a commissioner to ascertaiil and report the amount due.
A decree pro confesso in admiralty is not final, and merely authorizes the court
In A.dmiralty. Libel fors'\lpplies on open account. A decree pro confesso was rendered against th13 s<lhooner, whereupon the libelant's proctor moved the court fora final decree for the sum sued for as set up in the libel, without further proof in support of the claim. Hannis Taylor, for libelant. TouLMJN,J'.,(orally.) When ·the court adjudges 8 libel to be taken pro confesao, and proceeds to' hear the cause ex parte, as provided for in admiralty rule 29, the ex parte hearing may take place at the time of the default,. or on"8 future day in court, as the court may direct. The more usual course is to refer the matter to a commissioner to heal' the parties, and make report thereon to the court. Ben. Adm.. §§449-452;. 2 Conk. 1
Reported by Peter J. Hamilton, Esq., of the Mobile bar.