Vaughan v. Atkinson

369 U.S. 527 (1962)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P served on Ds'vessel from November 26, 1956, to March 2, 1957, when he was discharged on termination of a voyage. On March 7, 1957, he reported to a United States Public Health Service Hospital for examination and was admitted on March 18, 1957, as an inpatient, and treated for suspected tuberculosis. On June 6, 1957, he was discharged to an outpatient status and he remained in that status for over two years. On August 25, 1959, he was notified that he was fit for duty as of August 19, 1959. The hospital records show a strong probability of active tuberculosis. The Master furnished P a certificate to enter the hospital on his discharge, March 2, 1957. P forwarded to D's agent an abstract of his clinical record at the hospital in 1957, the only investigation conducted by them was an interrogation of the Master and Chief Engineer, who stated that P had never complained of any illness during his four months' service. D made no effort to make any further investigation of P's claim for maintenance and cure. D did not bother even to admit or deny the validity of that claim. Nearly two years passed. P was required to hire an attorney and sue in the courts to recover maintenance and cure, agreeing to pay the lawyer a 50% contingent fee. The District Court held that no damages for failure to furnish maintenance and cure had been shown. In its view such damages are payable not for attorney's fees incurred but only when the failure to furnish maintenance and cure caused or aggravated the illness or other physical or mental suffering. The Court allowed maintenance at the rate of $8 a day from June 6, 1957, to February 18, 1959. During that period P had worked as a taxi driver and the Court ordered that his earnings be deducted from the amount owed by Ds. The Court allowed 6% interest on the unpaid maintenance. The Court of Appeals denied counsel fees as damages. It held that a seaman has the duty to mitigate damages and that since 'the purpose of maintenance and cure is to make the seaman whole,' 'he will get something more than he is entitled to' unless his earnings during the period are deducted. P appealed.