Warren v. United States
340 U.S. 523 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seaman injured while on shore leave is considered to be 'in the service of the ship' and is entitled to maintenance and cure, unless the injury resulted from the seaman's own willful misbehavior, which is a standard higher than mere negligence.
Facts:
- Petitioner Warren was a messman on the S.S. Anna Howard Shaw, a vessel owned by the United States.
- In 1944, while the vessel was at Naples, Italy, Warren went ashore on authorized leave with two other crew members.
- The group did some sightseeing, shared a single bottle of wine, and then went to a dance hall.
- At the dance hall, Warren entered a room that had an adjoining, unprotected ledge overlooking the ocean.
- Warren stepped onto the ledge and leaned over to look down, grabbing an iron rod for support.
- The rod came loose from the building, causing Warren to lose his balance, fall, and break his leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren, the petitioner, filed a libel (a lawsuit in admiralty law) in the District Court against the United States for maintenance and cure.
- The District Court found in favor of Warren and awarded him maintenance.
- The United States, as the shipowner, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, disallowing Warren's claim for maintenance.
- The Supreme Court granted Warren's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
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 seaman's negligent conduct, which does not rise to the level of willful misbehavior, while on shore leave for personal recreation bar him from recovering maintenance and cure for injuries sustained during that leave?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, a seaman's negligent conduct on shore leave does not bar recovery of maintenance and cure. The historic duty of maintenance and cure is forfeited only by willful misbehavior, not by ordinary negligence. First, the exceptions listed in the Shipowners' Liability Convention, such as for 'wilful act, default or misbehaviour,' are operative through general maritime law and do not require a separate Act of Congress to be effective. Second, the standard to disqualify a seaman requires 'some positively vicious conduct' or a 'deliberate act of indiscretion,' which is a higher bar than negligence. While Warren was plainly negligent, his conduct in grabbing a rod for support shows he was not willfully misbehaving. Finally, drawing on Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., injuries sustained during shore leave activities are considered 'in the service of the ship' because such leave is an essential component of the ship's business, necessary for the crew's efficiency and morale.
Dissent - Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, the seaman's conduct should bar recovery because the injuries were not sustained in the service of the ship. The dissent distinguishes Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., arguing that while access to and from the ship is essential to its service, a seaman's personal choice of recreation and entertainment ashore is not. To hold the shipowner liable for injuries occurring during such personal diversions is to create an accident insurance policy, a decision that should be made by legislation, not the courts.
Dissent - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, the seaman's conduct should bar recovery. While agreeing with the majority's interpretation of the Shipowners' Liability Convention, this dissent argues that the Court of Appeals correctly applied the legal standard to the facts. Warren's act of stepping onto a narrow, unprotected ledge high above the rocks and leaning over constituted a 'deliberate act of indiscretion.' Given the obvious and extreme danger, his conduct showed a reckless disregard for his own safety that rises to the level of willful misbehavior sufficient to disqualify him from receiving maintenance and cure.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of a shipowner's liability for maintenance and cure by extending the Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. precedent. It clarifies that 'in the service of the ship' covers not just a seaman's transit to and from the vessel during shore leave, but also the recreational activities undertaken ashore. The ruling firmly establishes that only willful misconduct, a standard much higher than mere or even gross negligence, can disqualify a seaman from this protection. This places nearly all risks associated with a seaman's shore leave, short of deliberate self-harm or vice, upon the shipowner as a cost of doing business, reinforcing the protective nature of maritime law towards seamen.
