247 U.S. 372
38 S.Ct. 501
62 L.Ed. 1171
LUCKENBACH S. S. CO., Inc.
Argued and Submitted April 18, 1918.
Decided June 3, 1918.
[Syllabus from pages 372-373 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Silas B. Axtell and Arthur L. Burchell, both of New York City (Fayette B. Dow, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 373-377 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Peter S. Carter and William H. Carter, both of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 377-378 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In December, 1915, petitioner was employed by respondent, a Delaware corporation as fireman on board the steamship J. L. Luckenbach, which it then operated and controlled. While at sea, twenty-four hours out from New York, the port of destination, petitioner undertook to perform certain duties on deck during a heavy wind; a wave came aboard, knocked him down and broke his leg. He received due care immediately; when the vessel arrived at destination he was taken to the marine hospital, where he remained for three months; during that time it became necessary to amputate his leg. After discharge from the hospital, claiming that his injuries resulted from the negligence and an improvident order of a superior officer, he instituted a common-law action in Supreme Court, New York county, demanding full indemnity for damage sustained. The cause was removed to the United States District Court because of diverse citizenship. Counsel did not question seaworthiness of ship or her appliances, and announced that no claim was made for maintenance, cure, or wages. At conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the court directed verdict for respondent, and judgment thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 243 Fed. 536, 156 C. C. A. 234. The latter court said:
'The contract of a seaman is maritime, and has written into it those peculiar features of the maritime law that were considered in the case of The Osceola [189 U. S. 158, 23 Sup. Ct. 83, 47 L. Ed. 760]; and although, because of these peculiarities, such contracts are almost invariably litigated in admiralty courts, still the contract must be the same in every court, maritime or common law. The only difference between a proceeding in one court or the other would be that the remedy would be regulated by the lex fori. If a seaman, who had been locked up or put in irons for disobedience of orders, were to sue the master for damages in a court of common law, he could not recover like a shore servant, such as a cook or chauffeur, who had received the same treatment. So a seaman, bringing suit in a common-law court for personal injuries, could recover, even if guilty of contributory negligence, although a shore servant suing in the same court could not; and a seaman suing in a common-law court for personal injuries could recover (except in the case of unseaworthiness of the vessel or failure to give proper care and medical attention) only wages to the end of the voyage and the expenses for maintenance and cure for a reasonable time thereafter, whereas in a similar case a shore servant would be entitled to recover full indemnity. Therefore, by virtue of the inherent nature of the seaman's contract, the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were totally immaterial considerations in this case; the sole question for the jury to determine being whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover because he had not received from the defendant his wages to the end of the voyage and the expense for his maintenance and cure for a reasonable time thereafter.
'Has Congress changed the situation by section 20 of the Seamen's Act [chapter 153, 38 Stat. 1164, 1185, Comp. St. 1916, § 8337a], as the plaintiff contends? He argues that the act makes the master a fellow servant of the seaman, and therefore that Congress intended to make the relation between the seaman and all the officers throughout the same as at common law. But the Supreme Court, in the case of The Osceola, supra, while reserving the question whether the master and seaman were fellow servants, held that it made no difference whatever in respect to the liability of the shipowners for an improvident order of the master which resulted in personal injuries to the seaman. * * *
'It follows that whether the master and seaman are fellow servants or not is quite immaterial in the case of a suit for injuries resulting from an improvident order of the master. For this reason the court was right in directing a verdict for the defendant, and the judgment is affirmed.'
In The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175, 23 Sup. Ct. 483, 487 (47 L. Ed. 760), a libel in rem to recover damages for personal injuries to a seaman while on board and alleged to have resulted from the master's negligence, speaking through Mr. Justice Brown, we held:
'1. That the vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure, and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.
'2. That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship. Scarff v. Metcalf, 107 N. Y. 211 [13 N. E. 796, 1 Am. St. Rep. 807].
'3. That all the members of the crew, except perhaps the master, are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.
'4. That the seaman is not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew, but is entitled to maintenance and cure, whether the injuries were received by negligence or accident.'
After reference to article 1, § 8, and article 3, § 2, of the Constitution, we declared in Souther Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 215, 216, 37 Sup. Ct. 524, 528 (61 L. Ed. 1086, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900):
'Considering our former opinions, it must now be accepted as settled doctrine that, in consequence of these provisions, Congress has paramount power to fix and determine the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country. * * * And further, that in the absence of some controlling statute, the general maritime law, as accepted by the federal courts, constitutes part of our national law, applicable to matters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.'
Concerning extent to which the general maritime law may be changed, modified or affected by state legislation, this was said:
'No such legislation is valid if it contravenes the essential purpose expressed by an act of Congress, or works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations. This limitation, at the least, is essential to the effective operation of the fundamental purposes for which such law was incorporated into our national laws by the Constitution itself. These purposes are forcefully indicated in the foregoing quotations from The Lottawanna,' 21 Wall. 558, 575 (22 L. Ed. 654).
Among such quotations is the following:
'One thing, however, is unquestionable; the Constitution must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several states, as that would have defeated the uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the states with each other or with foreign states.'
The work about which petitioner was engaged is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract; the injuries received were likewise maritime and the parties' rights and liabilities were matters clearly within the admiralty jurisdiction. Atlantic Transportation Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59, 60, 34 Sup. Ct. 733, 58 L. Ed. 1208, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1157. And unless in some way there was imposed upon the owners a liability different from that prescribed by maritime law, petitioner could properly demand only wages, maintenance and cure. Under the doctrine approved in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, no state has power to abolish the well-recognized maritime rule concerning measure of recovery and substitute therefor the full indemnity rule of the common law. Such a substitution would distinctly and definitely change or add to the settled maritime law; and it would be destructive of the 'uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the states with each other or with foreign states.'
Two acts of Congress are relied upon, and it is said that under each petitioner has the right to recover full indemnity according to the common law. They are: (1) Section 9, Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 76, 77, whereby District Courts of the United States were given exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 'saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it' (Judicial Code, §§ 24, 256 [Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1092, 1160; Comp. St. 1916, §§ 991(9), 1233]); and (2) section 20 of Act to Promote the Welfare of American Seamen, approved March 4, 1915, c. 153, 38 Stat. 1164, 1185, which provides:
'That in any suit to recover damages for any injury sustained on board vessel or in its service seamen having command shall not be held to be fellow servants with those under their authority.'
The precise effect of the quoted clause of the original Judiciary Act has not been delimited by this court and different view have been entertained concerning it. In Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen we definitely ruled that it gave no authority to the several states to enact legislation which would work 'material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.' In The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 431 (18 L. Ed. 397), we said:
'That clause only saves to suitors 'the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.' It is not a remedy in the common-law courts which is saved, but a common-law remedy. A proceeding in rem, as used in the admiralty courts, is not a remedy afforded by the common law; it is a proceeding under the civil law.'
And in Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 644, 648, 20 Sup. Ct. 824, 827 (44 L. Ed. 921):
'Some of the cases already cited recognize the distinction between a common-law action and a common-law remedy. Thus in The Moses Taylor, * * * it is said of the saving clause of the Judiciary Act: 'It is not a remedy in the common-law courts which is saved, but a common-law remedy." 'If the suit be in personam against an individual defendant, with an auxiliary attachment against a particular thing, or against the property of the defendant in general, it is essentially a proceeding according to the course of the common law, and within the saving clause of the statute * * * of a common-law remedy. The suit in this case being one in equity to enforce a common-law remedy, the state courts were correct in assuming jurisdiction.'
The distinction between rights and remedies is fundamental. A right is a well founded or acknowledged claim; a remedy is the means employed to enforce a right or redress an injury. Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Plainly, we think, under the saving clause a right sanctioned by the maritime law may be enforced through any appropriate remedy recognized at common law; but we find nothing therein which reveals an intention to give the complaining party an election to determine whether the defendant's liability shall be measured by common-law standards rather than those of the maritime law. Under the circumstances here presented, without regard to the court where he might ask relief, petitioner's rights were those recognized by the law of the sea.
Section 20 of the Seamen's Act declares 'seamen having command shall not be held to be fellow servants with those under their authority,' and full effect must be given this whenever the relationship between such parties becomes important. But the maritime law imposes upon a shipowner liability to a member of the crew injured at sea by reason of another member's negligence without regard to their relationship; it was of no consequence therefore to petitioner whether or not the alleged negligent order came from a fellow servant; the statute is irrelevant. The language of the section discloses no intention to impose upon shipowners the same measure of liability for injuries suffered by the crew while at sea as the common law prescribes for employers in respect of their employes on shore.
The judgment of the court below is
Mr. Justice HOLMES concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice PITNEY, Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, and Mr. Justice CLARKE, dissent.