Warren v. United States

Background

A messman aboard a U.S.-owned ship went ashore in Naples in 1944 on leave with two crewmates. They shared a small bottle of wine, visited a dance hall, and later he leaned out on an unprotected ledge to look at the sea. He grabbed an iron rod for support, the rod came off, and he fell and broke his leg. The District Court awarded maintenance and cure, but the Court of Appeals denied recovery.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a 1939 international treaty’s exceptions required Congress to act and whether the sailor’s conduct was serious enough to bar recovery. It held that the treaty’s permitted exceptions operate through existing U.S. maritime law without separate legislation. Under that law a sailor loses maintenance and cure only for willful misbehavior or equivalent gross fault. The Court found the messman negligent but not willful, so he kept the right to maintenance and cure.

Real world impact

The ruling confirms that injuries during shore leave, including diversions ashore, can be covered by maintenance and cure when the sailor’s conduct is not deliberately reckless. Shipowners can still avoid liability if a court finds willful misbehavior or similarly extreme fault. The Court treated the treaty as setting an international standard that courts apply alongside established maritime rules. This decision interprets the treaty for U.S. courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Jackson and Clark argued the injury was not in the ship’s service and recovery should await legislation; Justice Frankfurter would have upheld the denial on the facts.