Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.

1959-04-06

Headline: Seaman injured aboard a Spanish ship in New York: Court lets federal court hear his Jones Act negligence claim but bars U.S. maritime law against the foreign shipowner for a foreign voyage, remanding other claims.

Holding: The Court held the federal court may decide the seaman’s Jones Act claim and hear related maritime claims as pendent, but it affirmed dismissal of claims against the foreign shipowner because U.S. maritime law did not apply.

Real World Impact:

Limits foreign seamen’s ability to sue foreign shipowners under U.S. maritime law.
Allows federal courts to decide Jones Act claims and hear related maritime claims.
Remands claims against port contractors for further proceedings in federal court.

Topics: maritime injuries, seamen rights, federal jurisdiction, foreign ships

Summary

Background

Francisco Romero, a Spanish seaman, signed on as crew of the S.S. Guadalupe, a Spanish-flag ship owned by a Spanish company. After voyages from Spain to New York and stops in Vera Cruz and Havana, Romero was seriously injured in Hoboken on May 12, 1954 when struck by a cable. He sued in federal court in New York, naming the Spanish owner and three U.S. companies involved in port work. The District Court dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the issues.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two main questions: whether a federal law claim under the Jones Act could be heard in a federal court sitting on the law side and whether U.S. maritime law should apply to a foreign seaman injured on a foreign ship during a voyage that began and ended abroad. The Court said the federal trial court can assume jurisdiction to decide a Jones Act negligence claim and may hear related maritime claims as “pendent” to that claim. But applying the choice-of-law standards from Lauritzen v. Larsen, the Court held that U.S. maritime law should not be applied to Romero’s claims against the Spanish shipowner and affirmed dismissal of those claims.

Real world impact

For foreign seamen injured on foreign ships during foreign voyages, this decision makes it harder to recover from a foreign shipowner under U.S. maritime law. Federal courts may still hear Jones Act claims to determine jurisdiction and can keep related claims against diverse U.S. defendants; the Court remanded the case for further proceedings against the port contractors and husbanding agent.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices disagreed: Justice Brennan argued the federal law-side jurisdiction should cover these maritime claims, and Justice Black would have applied the Jones Act more broadly to a seaman hurt in U.S. waters.