Glynn J. Pelotto v. L & N Towing Company
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11224, 604 F.2d 396, 1981 A.M.C. 1047 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under general maritime law, a seaman's right to sue for maintenance and cure is continuous, and therefore the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a seaman from bringing a subsequent action for payments that accrue after a prior judgment on related Jones Act or unseaworthiness claims. A seaman's rejection of free public hospital care only forfeits the additional expense caused by the rejection, not necessarily the entire right to maintenance and cure.
Facts:
- On October 13, 1972, Glynn Pelotto, a seaman employed by L&N Towing Co. on the M/V CHET G, sustained a severe knee injury.
- On September 3, 1974, Pelotto and his employers reached an agreement where the employers would pay all maintenance and cure costs incurred to date.
- The agreement also included a tender of further medical treatment at the United States Public Health Service Hospital, which Pelotto rejected.
- The employers continued to pay Pelotto's maintenance from September 1974 until December 1975.
- On December 10, 1975, Pelotto was awarded a $75,000 judgment in a separate trial against his employers for his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims.
- On December 15, 1975, five days after the judgment was awarded, Pelotto’s maintenance payments were terminated by his employers.
Procedural Posture:
- Glynn Pelotto sued his employers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for damages under the Jones Act and the doctrine of unseaworthiness.
- In that action, Pelotto moved for partial summary judgment on maintenance and cure, but the motion was rendered moot by a settlement agreement on those claims.
- The Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims proceeded to a trial, which resulted in a $75,000 judgment for Pelotto on December 10, 1975.
- Pelotto filed a new, separate lawsuit on July 26, 1976, seeking maintenance and cure payments that were terminated after the prior judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the employers, dismissing the second lawsuit on the grounds of res judicata and forfeiture.
- Pelotto, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a seaman from bringing a subsequent lawsuit for maintenance and cure when those claims arise after a prior judgment on related Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge John R. Brown
No. The doctrine of res judicata does not bar a subsequent suit for maintenance and cure, as the shipowner's obligation is continuous and gives rise to serial causes of action. The court reasoned that maintenance and cure is a unique maritime remedy designed to be ongoing until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. Citing precedents like Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, the court explained that future maintenance and cure are not typically awarded in a lump sum, meaning a prior judgment on other claims cannot preclude a new action for payments that subsequently come due. This continuing obligation allows seamen to bring successive suits to collect payments as they accrue. Similarly, collateral estoppel does not apply because the issues in a Jones Act claim (negligence, damages) differ from those in a maintenance and cure claim (contractual right to care until maximum cure). Regarding the rejection of public hospital care, this only forfeits recovery for the additional expense caused by seeking private treatment, not the right to all maintenance or the cost of care that would have been provided.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the special protection afforded to seamen's maintenance and cure rights under general maritime law. It clarifies that claim preclusion doctrines like res judicata are applied differently to these ongoing obligations compared to one-time tort claims. By affirming the right to bring 'serial suits,' the court prevents employers from using a prior tort judgment as a pretext to terminate their continuing duty to provide care. This precedent ensures that an injured seaman’s right to support during recovery is not prematurely extinguished by the resolution of separate, albeit related, legal claims.
