The Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc.
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13682, 553 F.2d 830 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of quasi-contract, a vessel owner who diverts course to render medical assistance to a seaman on another vessel is entitled to recover reasonable expenses incurred, when the assistance was requested by the other vessel in fulfillment of its duty of maintenance and cure.
Facts:
- William Turpin, a fireman on the S.T. OVERSEAS PROGRESS, owned by Overseas Oil Carriers, suffered a suspected heart attack while the ship was in the mid-Atlantic.
- The OVERSEAS PROGRESS had no doctor, and its officers, realizing their resources were inadequate for Turpin's worsening condition, administered morphine based on radio advice from the Public Health Service.
- The captain of the OVERSEAS PROGRESS sent a radio message requesting assistance from any nearby ships with doctors.
- The S.S. CANBERRA, a faster passenger liner with a hospital and owned by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), was the nearest ship to respond.
- The OVERSEAS PROGRESS specifically requested that the CANBERRA rendezvous to provide treatment for Turpin.
- In response, the CANBERRA altered its course and increased its speed to meet the OVERSEAS PROGRESS.
- During their communications, the CANBERRA's captain informed the OVERSEAS PROGRESS's captain that P&O might seek reimbursement for diversion costs, and the latter did not object, later countersigning a letter to that effect.
- Turpin was transferred to the CANBERRA, where he was diagnosed with a myocardial infarction and received successful medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) filed a complaint against Overseas Oil Carriers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking $12,108.95 in damages.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment on a set of stipulated facts.
- The district court granted P&O $500 for nursing services but denied its claim for additional fuel expenses, reasoning that traditional 'pure life salvage' rules barred such recovery.
- P&O (appellant) appealed the denial of its fuel expense claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Overseas Oil Carriers as the appellee.
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 a vessel owner who, at the request of another ship, alters course to provide necessary medical aid to a stricken seaman on that ship, have a right to recover for its additional fuel costs under the doctrine of quasi-contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Irving R. Kaufman
Yes. A vessel that performs another vessel's duty to provide medical care to a crewman at the latter's request is entitled to recover its reasonable expenses. The court reasoned that Overseas Oil Carriers had an ancient maritime duty of 'maintenance and cure' toward its seaman, William Turpin. This duty required making reasonable efforts to get him swift medical care. By requesting the CANBERRA's assistance, the OVERSEAS PROGRESS was asking the CANBERRA to perform this duty on its behalf, which saved the OVERSEAS PROGRESS from incurring the greater expense of diverting to a shore hospital. This situation falls squarely within the principles of quasi-contract, where restitution is granted to a party who performs another's duty to a third person, especially when the service is immediately necessary and the performing party intends to charge for it. The court distinguished this from 'pure life salvage,' noting that P&O was not seeking a reward, but merely reimbursement for its actual expenses incurred as a direct result of the requested assistance.
Analysis:
This decision carves out an important equitable exception to the traditional maritime rule against compensation for 'pure life salvage.' By applying the land-based doctrine of quasi-contract to a maritime rescue, the court established a precedent that a rescuing vessel can recover its reasonable expenses when it acts upon a specific request to fulfill another vessel's legal duty. This encourages better-equipped vessels to assist others in medical emergencies without having to absorb the full financial cost of the diversion. The ruling clarifies the distinction between claiming a salvage award (a reward) and seeking reimbursement for actual costs (restitution), thereby modernizing maritime law to reflect principles of fairness and unjust enrichment.
