9. The Master's denial of plaintiff's request was under all the circumstances of the case reasonable and the Master acted in all respects as a reasonable prudent person would have acted under the circumstances.
10. Upon arrival of the vessel at Philadelphia, plaintiff was furnished with a medical certificate and sent to the United States Public Health Service for examination and treatment on complaints of pain in the left shoulder, left side and abdomen. After examination and treatment, including x-ray, he was pronounced fit for duty and sent back to the ship. Out-patient care was furnished plaintiff by the United States Public Health Service at Philadelphia, from November 30, 1949 to December 6, 1949.
11. Early on the morning of December 2, 1949, when the ship was preparing to sail from the Port of Philadelphia to Antwerp, Belgium, plaintiff failed to turn to and perform his duties in securing the ship for sea. Plaintiff at that time complained of feeling ill and unable to work. The Master recommended that he leave the ship, which plaintiff refused to do, and the Master thereupon ordered plaintiff removed from the ship and his employment terminated because of physical disability. Plaintiff left the ship 'under protest'.
12. Thereafter, treatment and examination at the United States Public Health Service in Philadelphia revealed, through chest x-ray, lung congestion and lesions with a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis, and on December 6, 1949 plaintiff was transferred to the Marine Hospital at Stapleton, L.I.
13. Plaintiff at the time of his entry into the hospital and up to the present time has suffered from a moderately advanced case of pulmonary tuberculosis.
14. Defendants furnished plaintiff at all times between September 6, 1949 and December 2, 1949 with a safe place to perform his duties.
15. Defendants furnished plaintiff a safe and seaworthy vessel and appurtenances at all times between September 6, 1949 and December 2, 1949.
16. Defendants at all times between September 6, 1949 and December 2, 1949 provided plaintiff with proper and adequate medical care, attention and maintenance for the alleviation and cure of plaintiff's illness.
17. The Master of defendants' vessel in denying plaintiff's request to be put ashore off Key West, Florida, did not act in a negligent or imprudent manner.
18. The defendants were not negligent.
19. The pulmonary tuberculosis from which plaintiff is presently suffering was not caused by or aggravated and activated by any condition of unseaworthiness of the vessel or any act of negligence on the part of the defendants, its officers of the vessel or members of the crew.
This case involved very simple fact issues. Plaintiff had, as in any civil case, the burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. In order to do so in this case he had two substantial hurdles to overcome. First, he had to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the damp and cold condition of his living quarters and, second, that living in such damp and cold quarters for the period of time claimed would either cause his tubercular condition or aggravate and activate a preexisting dormant tubercular condition. As indicated in the findings of fact set forth above, plaintiff failed to get over the first hurdle. Had he done so, he would still have stubbed his toe on the second. Medical testimony was conflicting on the question of the effect of damp and cold living quarters in bringing about the condition from which the plaintiff is presently suffering. Plaintiff had the burden of establishing causal connection, and he failed to do so. The medical evidence adduced by the defendants convinced me that even assuming the truth of plaintiff's allegations of damp and cold quarters, it was not a causative factor in bringing about his condition. Because of plaintiff's serious condition, this case appeals very strongly to the sympathy of the Court. However, the facts must be determined from the record before me and they fail to establish defendants' liability.
Conclusions of Law.
1. The vessel 'Andrew A. Humphreys' was seaworthy.
2. The defendants by their officers, agents and members of the crew were not negligent.
3. The defendants by their officers, agents and members of the crew rendered the plaintiff proper medical assistance.
4. The plaintiff's tubercular condition did not result from any unseaworthiness of the 'Andrew A. Humphreys', nor the negligence of the defendants.
5. The Master of the 'Andrew A. Humphreys' was not negligent in denying plaintiff's request to be put ashore at Key West.
6. Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.