TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jose A. Perez v. Suwanee Steamship Co., and Orion Shipping & Trading Co., Inc.

Jose A. PEREZ, Plainfiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. SUWANEE STEAMSHIP CO., and Orion Shipping & Trading Co., Inc., Defendants-Appeliees-Appellants

Perez v. Suwanee S.S. Co., 239 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: rev'd sub nom. Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 10, 1956
Docket
No. 24005_1
Judges
Hand, Medina, Lum-Bard
Citations
239 F.2d 1801956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4160

Opinion — Per Curiam

*181 PER CURIAM.

Even though we assume that, because of the plaintiff’s obviously disturbed mental state, the master should have done more than merely to take away his glasses and send him below, Reek v. Pacifie-Atlantic S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 866 , there is no evidence that except for the cut of his wrist he suffered any injury from this neglect. The cut was indeed an injury for which the ship is liable: but of it Judge Walsh said that “The damage to the wrist was inconsequential. As far as I can see, that has left no impairment whatever. If there had been damage to the wrist, we might have had a more difficult question.” We are therefore disposed to treat the cut as a case of de minimis, and for that reason we affirm the judgment on the first and second claims for relief.

The third claim is for maintenance and cure, and we agree that it would have been altogether unwarranted to hold that the plaintiff’s failure to disclose his mental condition at the time he shipped aboard should disable him from recovery. Lindquist v. Dilkes, 3 Cir., 127 F.2d 21 ; Tawada v. United States, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 615 ; and Ahmed v. United States, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 898 . We cannot, however, agree with the refusal to deduct from the award the wages earned by the plaintiff as dishwasher during the period of his incapacity. In Wilson v. United States, 229 F.2d 277, 281 , we held that when “a seaman can and does obtain part-time work sufficiently similar to his regular employment, he must show some reason why he has not secured such employment for the entire convalescence period.” That obviously presupposed that any wages earned during such employment were to be deducted; and in the case at bar, although it may be argued that dishwashing was not “sufficiently similar” to the work of a seaman to be counted, it is answer enough that the plaintiff accepted the job. The remedy of maintenance is to put the seaman in as good a position as to board and lodging as he would have been in, if he had not become ill. If what he earned is added to the full allowance, he will get something more in addition to his maintenance.

Interest should run on each day’s allowance from the day it became due.

Judgment modified by reducing the allowance by the amount of the wages earned by the plaintiff as dishwasher, and otherwise affirmed, with interest computed as aforesaid.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1957: 11958: 21959: 21960: 21961: 11962: 31964: 11965: 21967: 11969: 31983: 11995: 219572026peak 1962 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Vaughan v. Atkinson369 U.S. 527 (1962)
  2. Albert Reardon v. California Tanker Company260 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1958)
  3. McMillan v. Tug Jane A. Bouchard Official 56872885 F. Supp. 452 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
  4. Petition of United States303 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D.N.C. 1969)
  5. Rogers v. New Jersey Barging Corp.567 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
  6. Vaughan v. Atkinson291 F.2d 813 (4th Cir. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Clifton v. Voyager Inc.29 Am. Samoa 2d 80 (Am. Samoa 1995)
  2. McMillan v. Tug Jane A. Bouchard Official 56872885 F. Supp. 452 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
  3. Rogers v. New Jersey Barging Corp.567 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
  4. Cunnyngham v. Donovan304 F. Supp. 612 (E.D. La. 1969)
  5. Petition of United States303 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D.N.C. 1969)
  6. Herman Neff v. Dravo Corporation407 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Lindquist v. Dilkes, 127 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1942) 40
Tawada v. United States, 162 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1947) 36
Ahmed v. United States, 177 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1949) 33
Reck v. Pac.-Atl. S. S. Co., 180 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1950) 30
Wilson v. United States, 229 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1956) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list