The court entered a decree for the libelant and against the ship for the sum.
Concerning the law the case the appeal, the appellants principally rely two propositions First, that the decision, a doctrine has been annotmced which denies the right a seaman pursue a vessel in rem for injury occasioned the neglect the master furnish him proper medical treatment when sick or injured in the service the vessel and, second, that, whatever may the established rule upon that subject in the European Union, the admiralty law England, by which the present case governed, recognizes no such lien.
In the case The Osceola the Supreme Court answered two questions which had been certified from the Circuit Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which, condensed into one, were, in substance, whether a vessel was liable in rem a member the crew for injury resulting from the improvident and neghgent order the master, in directing that the gangway unshipped while the vessel was at sea, running against the wind. The appellants rely on the language the opinion, where said, The statutes the United States contain no provision upon the subject the liability the ship or her owners for damages occasioned the negligence the captain a member the crew but in ail but a few the more recent cases the analogies the English and Continental codes have been followed, and the recovery limited the wages and expenses maintenance and cure and upon the final proposition announced in the opinion at, that the seaman not allowed recover an indemnity for the negligence the master or any member the crew, but entitled maintenance and cure, whether the injuries were received negligence or accident. These observations the court are generai in their terms, but must remembered that they were directed solely the questions certified for decision.
Summarising and paraphrasing
The inquiry concerned the liability the ship a member her crew for injuries received through a negligent order the master, made while navigating the ship. It not implied in the language used, nor presumed therefrom, that the court intended establish a rule narrower than that recognized the more recent decisions of the federal courts, that the master and the crew are fellow servants only as matters connected with the navigation the ship, but that the master a ship at sea represents the owners in respect the Personal duties and obligations which they owe the seamen.
learned justice who delivered the opinion the court intended to discredit the views theretofore expressed him in Card, where, in discussing the obligation the ship to care for and cure sick and injured seamen, said, Of course, if there any negligence or misconduct the part the officers of the vessel, this would furnish writing a research paper a complete guide a separate ground for action, in which the seaman would recover not only his expenses for medical attendance, etc. but compensation for his personal injuries, as in ordinary cases negligence nor submit, presumed that it was the intention the court pre written essays for sale overrule, without referring thereto, a long line european decisions in which has been uniformly held for nearly a century that a seaman injured while in the service his ship entitled proper care and medical attention at the expense the ship, and that, if this neglected, the ship may held in consequential damages.
Not only does the opinion in the Osceola Case express no disapproval the doctrine these decisions, but incidentally cites the two leading cases Brown Overton and The City Alexandria the former upon the proposition that a seaman receiving injury in the performance his duty entitled treated and cured at the expense the ship.
That was a case in which consequential damages were awarded a seaman who was injiired a voyage from Calcutta Boston, for the failure the master take him into the port St.
Helena for medical treatment. To support the proposition that the law Great Britain gives no lien upon a vessel for consequential damages in a case such as here presented, the appellants rely upon the provisions the merchants shipping.
A few only the sections that act are pertinent the present inquiry. Section provides, in substance, that a seaman may not any agreement forfeit his lien the ship, or be deprived any existing remedy write my essay wikipedia for the recovery his wages.
Section provides tliat the expense providing necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance, and the expense maintenance a member the ship's crew who hurt or injured in the service the ship, shall defrayed the owner the ship without any deduction that account from his wages, and that if the neglect of the master or owner there failure equip the ship with proper medicines, medical stores, or accommodations, the owner or master shall liable pay ail expenses not exceeding three months wages properly and necessarily incurred reason the illness, and that such expenses may recovered as if they were wages duly earned, but this provision shall not aiïect any further liability the master or the owner for the neglect or any other remedies possessed the seaman If any the expenses attendant the Illness, hurt or injury a seaman or apprentice, which are paid under this act the master or owner, are paid any British consular officer or other person behalf the crown, or if any other expenses in respect the Illness, hurt or injury any seaman or apprentice whose wages are not accounted for under this act that officer are paid, those expenses shall repaid the officer or other person the master the ship. If the expenses are not repaid, the amount thereof shall, with costs, a charge upon the ship, and recoverable from the master or from the owner the ship for the time being, as a debt the crown, either ordinary process law or in the same court and manner as It contended that under these statutory provisions the lien upon the ship in favor the seaman limited his claim for wages, and that, while the owner the ship required furnish medicine and attendance, if fails the owner, not the ship, must repay to the seaman the amount expenses actually incurred therein. It is noted, however, that the act gives any British consular officer who pays such expenses a lien the ship therefor, for declares that sucH expenses shall a charge upon the ship, recovered ia the same court and manner as wages due seamen. It undisputed that, under the English law, wages due a seaman may recovered how to buy a term paper a proceeding in rem in the admiralty court. It not shown what was the law Great Britain prior the enactment the merchants shipping. If prior that time the EngHsh admiralty courts recognized a lien upon a ship, and the right proceed against her in rem for the recovery writing help for students damages, in a case such as have here under consideration, not find that the act, in terms or necessary implication, has inipaired that right. It has declared, true, that the expenses medical advice and attendance a hurt or sick sailor shall defrayed the owner the ship, and provides for the recovery damages, a limited extent, for the failure but this not necessarily inconsistent with the existence ged essay writing help a right pursue the vessel in rem and there follows the proviso that this provision shall not affect any further liability the master or owner for the neglect or any other remedies possessed the seaman or apprentice. But said that, irrespective the special provisions the merchants shipping, the law England, as interpreted its courts, the master and the crew a ship are fellow servants at ail times, under ail circumstances, and as ail relations It was argued that the master a vessel, although in some respects assignment writing service in uk the servant the shlpowner, possesses In relation the crew powers and duties independent hlm, and that the need help writing a good thesis statement law whlch exempts a master from liability his servant for the negligence another servant paying someone to write a paper engaged in a common employment with him did not apply in such a case. And the Chancellor proceeded add that did not think it possible give efïect that contention. That was a case in which the personal representative a seaman who had been lost at sea sued the owners for damages alleging that the master, while navigating the ship at sea, was negligent, in failing have placed in position, the approach stormy weather, a detachable portion the ship's rail.