Due to the rigors of the sea, long periods of time away from home and the whim of tyrannical captains, seafarers have historically been treated as “wards” of the court and with the “tenderness of a guardian.” Boulton v. Moore, 14 F.922, 926 (N.D. Ill. 1883). However, that tide may be turning.

In a time not long ago, a seaman could venture ashore in a foreign port, jump out of the window of a brothel and break a leg. Yet, that seaman was nonetheless entitled to a remedy against his employer for “maintenance” (daily living expenses) and “cure” (medical care) while recovering. The reason being that even some deliberate acts of misbehavior were considered a “classic predisposition of sailors ashore.” As a result, courts were liberal in their attitude toward seamen who received injuries while on shore leave through their “notorious penchants.” Koistinen v. American Export Lines, 194 Misc. 942 (City Court, New York County 1948). In a case involving a seaman’s brawl aboard ship, the Second Circuit stated that the ordinary seaman is likely to be less even tempered than others, while recognizing that a shipowner violates its duty only if there is present in the crew “a seaman with a wicked disposition, a propensity to evil conduct, a savage and vicious nature.” Gerald v. United States Lines Co., 368 F. 2d 343 (2d Cir. 1966).

Mari-Crimes