Kossick v. United Fruit Co.
365 U.S. 731, 6 L. Ed. 2d 56, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1955 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement that modifies a shipowner's maritime duty of maintenance and cure is a maritime contract governed by federal maritime law. State law, such as a Statute of Frauds, cannot be applied to invalidate such a contract where doing so would undermine the uniformity of maritime law.
Facts:
- Petitioner Kossick, a chief steward for respondent United Fruit Company, suffered a thyroid ailment while employed on one of its vessels.
- United Fruit Company had a legal maritime duty to provide Kossick with maintenance and cure.
- Kossick requested treatment by a private physician, believing the care at a U.S. Public Health Service Hospital would be inadequate based on past experience.
- United Fruit Company declined to pay for the private physician but insisted Kossick enter a Public Health Service Hospital for free care.
- Kossick alleges that United Fruit Company orally promised to assume responsibility for all consequences of any improper or inadequate treatment he might receive at the public hospital.
- Relying on this oral promise, Kossick entered the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in New York for treatment.
- Kossick claims he received improper treatment at the hospital, which resulted in grievous bodily injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Kossick filed a diversity complaint against United Fruit Company in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court dismissed Kossick's first cause of action, which was based on the oral contract, ruling it was void under the New York Statute of Frauds.
- Kossick appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding the contract was not a maritime contract.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether state or maritime law applies.
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 New York Statute of Frauds apply to invalidate an oral agreement between a shipowner and a seaman that modifies the shipowner's maritime duty of maintenance and cure?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No, the New York Statute of Frauds does not apply. An oral contract modifying a shipowner's maritime duty of maintenance and cure is fundamentally a maritime contract, and its validity should be judged by maritime law, not state law. First, the contract is maritime because it stands in place of a duty created by and known only in admiralty; the consideration was Kossick's forbearance to press what he considered the full extent of his maritime right to maintenance and cure. Second, while some maritime matters are 'local' enough for state law to apply, this is not one of them. The application of state law here would invalidate the contract, disrupting the uniformity essential to maritime law, which governs transactions that can occur anywhere in the world. The state's interest in preventing fraud through its Statute of Frauds is insufficient to overcome the strong federal interest in a uniform maritime rule that recognizes the validity of oral contracts.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, the New York Statute of Frauds should apply. The majority's decision improperly reinvigorates the 'ill-starred' and 'loose doctrine' of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen. To suggest that applying a local Statute of Frauds to this limited and essentially local transaction would 'disturb the uniformity of maritime law' is an abstract and doctrinaire view. The judgment of the lower courts should have been affirmed.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Whittaker
Yes, the New York Statute of Frauds applies. The contract claimed by the petitioner was not a maritime contract but a New York contract. Therefore, it is barred by the state's Statute of Frauds.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the supremacy of federal maritime law over state law in the context of maritime contracts. It establishes that even contracts made on land can be maritime in nature if they directly relate to or modify a core maritime obligation, such as the duty of maintenance and cure. The ruling limits the 'maritime and local' doctrine, clarifying that it does not permit the application of state law when it would invalidate an agreement that is valid under general maritime principles. The case thus prioritizes national uniformity for maritime obligations over a state's general policy interests in regulating contracts.
