Lexplug logoLexplug

The Osceola

Supreme Court of the United States
23 S. Ct. 483, 189 U.S. 158, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1340 (1903)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under general maritime law, a vessel and its owner are not liable for indemnity for injuries a seaman sustains due to the negligence of the ship's master or a fellow crew member. The vessel's liability is limited to providing wages, maintenance, and cure, except in cases where the injuries result from the unseaworthiness of the vessel or its appliances.


Facts:

  • A seaman was a member of the crew on the vessel Osceola.
  • While the vessel was in navigable waters and during a heavy wind, the master gave an order to hoist a gangway.
  • The order to hoist the gangway was given before the vessel had arrived at her dock.
  • As a result of the master's order, the gangway was being hoisted when the heavy wind blew it against the seaman, causing him to sustain injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • The injured seaman (libellant) filed a libel in rem against the vessel Osceola in a federal District Court.
  • The District Court found in favor of the seaman, holding the vessel liable for the injuries.
  • The vessel's owners (claimants) appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the Supreme Court of the United States for a definitive ruling.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under general maritime law, is a vessel liable in rem to a crew member for injuries caused by a negligent order from the ship's master?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brown

No. Under general maritime law, a vessel is not liable in rem for injuries a seaman sustains as a consequence of the master's negligence. A review of ancient and modern maritime codes, as well as English and American case law, reveals a settled principle that a seaman's remedy for injuries sustained in the service of the ship is limited to maintenance and cure, unless the injury was caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The master and the crew are considered fellow servants, and the general maritime law does not permit a seaman to recover consequential damages or indemnity from the vessel or its owners for the negligence of a fellow servant. While an exception has developed to allow recovery for unseaworthiness, the negligent order of a master does not fall within that exception.



Analysis:

This decision is a landmark in American maritime law, as it systematically reviewed and synthesized historical maritime codes and precedents to establish a clear framework for seaman injury claims. The Court's four propositions effectively codified the existing doctrines of maintenance and cure, the unseaworthiness exception, and the fellow-servant rule in the maritime context. By denying recovery for the master's operational negligence, the case solidified a limitation on vessel owner liability that would later be addressed and modified by Congress through legislation like the Jones Act. The Osceola remains a foundational case for understanding the traditional rights and remedies of injured seamen.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query The Osceola (1903) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for The Osceola