that watch at half hour intervals from 4 A.M. to 8 A.M. on February 9, 1961 (id. at 100). Taking the evidence on the record as a whole, including Susol's deposition, a reasonable jury could not find that Susol or any other crew member was involved in any deliberate wrongdoing related to Phillip's death for which defendant was responsible.
The plaintiff raises two other instances which she alleges warrant a jury's awarding punitive damages, and which will be considered together.
(2) The fact that Phillip was never sedated during the whole period of his delirium.
(3) The fact that no attempt to secure medical advice or assistance was ever made after the deceased's initial outburst and continued delirium.
A jury might find negligence, and possibly in the instant case did base their finding of negligence, on the action or lack of action taken in regard to Phillip's condition by those onboard the defendant's ship. However, the character of the conduct of the officers and crew of the American Builder could not be found by a jury to rise to that of outrageous conduct, bad motive, or wanton indifference to the interests of the decedent.
Dr. J. W. Spellman testified that if he were a physician recommending to a lay crew on the prompt treatment of a seaman of the size, age and musculature of Phillip who was violently psychotic, he would recommend restraint and that forcible administration of an anesthetic might be hazardous because of further damage to the patient (Document 47, Dr. Spellman, N.T. 20-22). Dr. Baldwin Keyes, a noted specialist in neurology and psychiatry, testified in answer to a question as to what treatment was indicated for Phillip at the time of his psychotic outburst:
'Well, during the psychotic upset, violent outbreak of this kind, you first want rest, and the best rest is restraint. And we use it right straight along in all of our hospitals in the city. * * * You sometimes keep a patient in restraint for some days, rather than hit him too hard with drugs that might be dangerous to him if he is physically too sick to take them. But I think they did the right thing in placing him in restraint.' (Document 47, Dr. Keyes, N.T. 46; see, also, page 53.)
Dr. Keyes further testified, after explanation of Phillip's condition, that the crew members should not have forced the decedent to submit to a hypodermic needle (Document 47, p. 48) and, in answer to a question on the risk of forcing a patient to submit to a hypodermic; stated:
'Well, you can injure a man who is already sick, as this man proved later to be, by fighting with him, forcing him into a combative area. You can break an arm, break a leg, break off the needle; you can do a lot of things.' (Id., at 48.)
Dr. Keyes further testified, in relation to a question as to his opinion as to whether sedation was indicated for Phillip after the initial outburst had passed:
'Not particularly. I think he was quieting down. The wise thing to do was to let him quiet down and not disturb him with too much. * * *' (Id., at 50)
The above medical testimony indicates that the course of conduct taken in regard to Phillip cannot be found to be so careless as to indicate a wanton disregard of his rights. After his initial outburst, Phillip was restrained by being shackled to a bunk in the hospital room. An attempt was made to orally sedate the man, but this proved futile when he knocked the cup across the room (Document 21, p. 22, and N.T. 395; and N.T. 464). A hypodermic was prepared, but was never injected because Phillip's reaction was so violent that the officers were afraid to give him the injection (Document 21, p. 95, N.T. 365, and N.T. 465). Thus, sedation was considered for Phillip and rejected. It may have been negligent to reject this procedure, but in view of the medical testimony quoted in the previous paragraph, such cannot be considered outrageous conduct. Further, in view of the fact that both of these doctors agreed with the treatment given to Phillip after the onset of his delirium, the fact that medical advice was never sought cannot be considered as establishing a basis for the recovery of punitive damages either.
There is affirmative evidence on the record that Phillip's interests were being looked out for, such as the fact that the guard was set up around him on a 24-hour basis (see Exhibit P-8 and N.T. 143) in case he needed any assistance, and the fact that a radio message was sent by Captain Bell to Bordeaux instructing the defendant's agents that a mentally-disturbed crew member was onboard and requesting a doctor for him immediately upon docking (Bell, N.T. 314).
The above are not the acts of one who is wantonly disregarding another's rights. In retrospect, it might be said that more should or could have been done to aid or alleviate Phillip's condition, but this alone is not enough to establish the requisite conduct upon which punitive damages may be recovered.
Plaintiff's Motion for a Partial New Trial (Document 33) on the issue of punitive damages will be denied.
And now, March 4, 1965, it is ordered that the motion for partial new trial on issue of punitive damages (Document 33) is denied.