24. She was discharged on April 20, 1051, with instructions to continue hand and finger physiotherapy at home.
25. During the period that Mrs. Neville was a patient at the Marine Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, she underwent treatment for various other ailments, none of which bore any causal relation to the accident of June 9, 1950.
26. There is a direct causal relation between the injury sustained by the libellant and the atrophy of the muscles of the left arm and shoulder.
27. Up to the date of the conclusion of the trial, December 4, 1951, the libellant had not reached the point in her recovery where care and further treatment would not benefit her.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction of this suit by virtue of Section 1333 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
2. Libellant was injured on June 9, 1950, during the period of her service as an employee of the respondent on the vessel 'Trade Winds'.
3. Among the most pervasive incidents of the responsibility anciently imposed upon a ship owner for the health and security of sailors was the liability for the maintenance and cure of seamen who became ill or were injured during the period of their service. In the United States this obligation has been recognized consistently as an implied provision in contracts of marine employment and the liability in no sense is predicated on the fault or negligence of the ship owner. Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 1943, 318 U.S. 724, 63 S. Ct. 930, 87 L. Ed. 1107.
4. So broad is this obligation, that negligence or acts short of culpable misconduct on the seaman's part will not relieve the ship owner of the responsibility and only some wilful misbehavior or deliberate act of indiscretion suffices to deprive the seaman of this protection. Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., supra.
5. The acts of the libellant in this case do not constitute wilful misbehavior or deliberate indiscretion, but, rather, rise only to the level of negligence.
6. For these reasons, the libellant is entitled to recover for maintenance and cure until the maximum degree of improvement is reached. Farrell v. United States, 1949, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S. Ct. 707, 93 L. Ed. 850; Shields v. United States, 3 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 743.
7. Counsel for the parties entered into a stipulation at the pre-trial conference that if it should be determined that maintenance and cure is due and owing, then the amount should be at the rate of $ 4 per day.
8. Libellant is not entitled to any maintenance and cure during the period when she was hospitalized under circumstances where she had no expense. See Loverich v. Warner Co., 3 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 690.
9. Therefore, we conclude that the libellant is entitled to recover an amount of $ 1,784 for maintenance and cure computed at the rate of $ 4 per day for the period from the date of the injury, June 9, 1950, to and including the date of the conclusion of the trial, December 4, 1951 (543 days) less the number of days she was hospitalized at no expense to herself (97 days).
10. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.