Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson

Background

A seaman was injured while serving on a merchant ship traveling between Puget Sound and California. He sued his employer for damages, saying the ship’s mate was negligent. The employer answered that the seaman had accepted wages to the end of the voyage and had been taken to a hospital and given maintenance and cure (basic pay and medical care), and so could not now sue under the federal seamen’s statute. The trial court rejected that defense, the seaman won, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review only on the legal question about whether accepting wages and care forced an election that barred a later damage suit.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether taking maintenance, cure, and wages is an election preventing a later negligence lawsuit. It explained that maintenance, cure, and wages arise from the employment relationship and exist whether or not someone was negligent. Those payments are therefore a separate, cumulative benefit. By contrast, the new statutory damage remedy for negligence is an alternative to the old remedy of indemnity for unseaworthiness (a different basis for recovery). The Court held that the required election is only between the two inconsistent tort-based remedies (negligence damages versus unseaworthiness indemnity). Accepting routine pay and medical care does not force a seaman to give up his right to sue for negligence. The Court affirmed the judgment. (Justice Holmes agreed with the result.)

Real world impact

The decision means seafarers who receive shipboard pay and care can still pursue negligence damages. Employers cannot avoid negligence suits simply by providing maintenance, cure, or wages. The opinion resolved the legal rule, though the Court did not decide the separate factual question whether this seaman in fact demanded or received those payments.