lesions scattered over the surface of the right hand and lacerations and contusions to the face, at which time he was pronounced 'fit for duty' by that facility.
10. From October 29, 1955 to November 25, 1955, when he registered to ship out, libellant continued to experience pain in the left great toe. During this period, the treatment consisted of rest and epsom salts solutions administered by libellant himself.
11. By reason of the injury sustained in the service of respondent's vessel, libellant was disabled during the period September 30, 1955 to November 25, 1955, during which period he benefitted or could have benefitted from medical care and attention. Libellant did not work nor earn any money whatsoever during the aforesaid period of disability.
12. Libellant's disability was in no was due to his own gross misconduct, insubordination or disobedience to orders.
13. Shortly after his discharge from the United States, public Health Service, libellant made demand upon respondent for maintenance and cure. Respondent refused and neglected to pay libellant any maintenance and cure.
Respondent's principal contention is that since at the jury trial it offered no evidence that the injury alleged by libellant occurred in any way other than that testified to by libellant and it did offer evidence that no accident in fact occurred aboard its vessel and that libellant was discharged for intoxication, the jury by returning a verdict in its favor must have believed its evidence, and therefore, the Court must find that libellant was not injured while in the service of respondent's vessel. In this connection, we point out that it is possible, and perhaps probable, that the jury found that the injury to the libellant did occur at the time testified to by him and that libellant was not intoxicated (based on the log's failure to make any mention of libellant's intoxication), and the jury, notwithstanding, found the respondent was not negligent and its vessel was not unseaworthy or that the negligence of the respondent and/or the unseaworthiness of its vessel did not cause libellant's injuries. Under such circumstances despite the verdict of the jury in favor of the respondent the Court could make a finding that libellant was injured while in the service of respondent's vessel. Thus, it is abundantly clear that it is impossible to determine the finding or findings that prompted the jury to decide the case in favor of the respondent. It follows then that in this suit for maintenance and cure the Court is not bound by the verdict of the jury; hence, it exercises its right and discharges its duty by making independent findings of fact.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. Libellant is entitled to maintenance and cure at the stipulated rate of $ 8 per day during the period he benefitted or could have benefitted from medical attention and care.
3. Libellant is entitled to a decree sustaining the libel and awarding him maintenance and cure in the sum of $ 456 with interest at the annual rate of five per cent from November 26, 1955 and costs.
And now, this 10th day of November, 1960, in accordance with our opinion, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the within libel is Sustained and the libellant, Miguel Gomez, is awarded the sum of $ 456 with interest at the annual rate of five per cent from November 26, 1955 and costs.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.