United Fruit Company v. William E. Sumrall
This text of 273 F.2d 735 (United Fruit Company v. William E. Sumrall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Plaintiff, a seaman, sued (1) for damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and general maritime law, and (2) for maintenance and cure for disability, suffered while in the service of the Ship Cape Ann. The jury decided the damage action against him. The district judge decided the maintenance action in his faVor, allowing 580 days from August 22, 1955^ when defendant ceased payments, to March 26, 1957, when plaintiff reported for duty.
Defendant is here insisting that the court erred: (1) in finding and concludjno- that plaintiff suffered disability whiie jn the service of the ship, entitling hjjjj to maintenance and cure; (2) in finding and concluding that his conduct, in failing and refusing United States Public Health Service treatment, did not relieve defendant of any further duty of maintenance; and (3) in any event, in not holding that he was not entitled to maintenance between August 22, 1955, and the time of Dr. Hannon’s operation *n March of 1956.
In support of the first of these defenses, appellant points to plaintiff’s testimony: that he did not become ill on the voyage and that his disability re-suited entirely from being struck by an [736]*736improperly secured door and to the fact that the jury found against him in his action for damages based on this claim.
In support of the second defense, appellant relies on the testimony of plaintiff, summarized in the margin.1
t * .» ., i, * i i ., In support of the third defense, it re- .. , • ,, ’ ,, lies on the testimony showing that the operation performed and treatment af- , , , , f , „ ,, . forded plaintiff by Patton did not help ,. .... , . . ., his condition and perhaps worsened it.
We cannot agree with appellant on its first claim, that the finding of the district judge, that plaintiff received a disability in the service of the ship, was clearly erroneous. Cf. Ahmed v. United States, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 898. The finding of the jury was without effect on the judge’s finding on this issue, and there is evidence supporting it, including the undisputed fact that maintenance was actually paid,
to continue accepting Public Health „ . , , , ,, , . , , , Service treatment: that, indeed, he deHberatel it. We cannot, how. , X1 . , , ... ,, ever, agree that this conduct which, but „ ., ,, ,, for appellant s out patient status,2 would . , , , . . . , . „ „ , . have completely deprived him of all claim to maintenance, did do so. Cf. Norris, “The Law of Seaman”, Yol. 2. Secs. 591, 592, and 593, pp. 221-225, and cases ^ cited in notes thereto. See also Maoris v. Sociedad, 2 Cir., 245 F.2d 708; and Meyer v. United States, 2 Cir., M2 F.2d 482. We are, though, of the opinion that this conduct, under the circumstances testified to, which were not, E3-5] We agree, however, with appellant that the evidence demands a finding: that plaintiff did fail and refuse [737]*737but should have been, taken into consideration by the district judge in determining the maintenance to be allowed, should be taken into consideration here to the extent contended for by appellant in its third ground, with the result that the judgment is modified by disallowing the maintenance for the period from August, 1955, to March, 1956, and, as moditied, is affirmed, with costs of appeal divided.
Because the nature and extent of the obligation of maintenance and cure have been so fully discussed in the many cases cited in the excellent brief of appellant and in Norris, supra, including particularly the leading cases from the Supreme Court: Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 68 S.Ct. 391, 92 L.Ed. 468, and Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed. 850; and from the courts of appeals: Dobbs v. Lykes Bros., 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 55, a case from this court, and Ahmed v. United States, 177 F.2d 898 and Macris v. Sociedad, supra, from the Second Circuit, and of the extensive treatment of the whole subject of Maintenance and Cure in Norris, “The Law of Seamen”. Vol. 2, Chapter 26, pp. 123 to 239, it will be sufficient, without ourselves undertaking to further labor the matter here, to refer to the law as it is set down in these authorities.3
The judgment is modified and affirmed,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 F.2d 735, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5550, 1967 A.M.C. 2243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-fruit-company-v-william-e-sumrall-ca5-1960.