Document: 365 U.S. 731 81 S.Ct. 886 6 L.Ed.2d 56 John M. KOSSICK, Petitioner,v.UNITED FRUIT CO. No. 96. Argued Feb. 20, 1961. Decided April 17, Rehearing Denied May 29, See 366 941, 1657. Mr. Jacob Rassner, New York City, for petitioner. Eugene Underwood, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case calls in question propriety a dismissal before trial first cause action seaman's diversity complaint. Dismissal was on ground that allegations complaint are deficient by reason Statute Frauds. 2 The complaint, which present purposes must be taken as true, substance follows: Petitioner, while employed chief steward one vessels respondent, United Fruit Company, suffered thyroid ailment, not attributable to any fault but with respect it concededly had legal duty provide him maintenance and cure. Osceola, 189 158, 23 483, 47 L.Ed. 760. Respondent insisted petitioner undergo treatment at States Public Health Service Hospital. however, considering basis past experience such would prove unsatisfactory inadequate, notified respondent he wished treated private physician who agreed take care $350, amount payable fulfillment its obligation 3 Respondent, continues, declined accede this course, if enter Hospital (where receive free care) assume responsibility all consequences improper or inadequate treatment. Relying undertaking, being unable himself defray cost treatment, underwent alluded were both located York. 4 Finally, is alleged received hospital, grievous unwonted bodily injury, because liable damages $250,000.1 5 District Court dismissed agreement sued void under Frauds, N.Y. Personal Property Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 41, § 31, par. 2,2 there no allegation evidenced writing, 166 F.Supp. 571.3 Appeals affirmed. 275 F.2d 500. We brought here presented novel questions interplay state maritime law. 363 838, 80 1613, 1724. At outset, we think clear lower courts correct regarding sufficiency depending entirely upon averments respecting respondent's Liability certainly cannot founded principles respondeat superior. Nor anything authorities relating shipowner's cure suggests obliged, matter law, honor petitioner's preference responsible quality other hands which, appears, may reasonably have been assumed well trained careful. 7 With comes us, petitioner, hand, does deny contract's invalidity law controls, nor, can validity doubted, though reduced controls. For an established rule ancient respectability oral contracts generally regarded valid law.4 In posture things two decided: First, contract one? Second, so, nevertheless 'local' nature should judged law? I. 8 boundaries admiralty jurisdiction over contracts—as opposed torts crimes—being conceptual rather than spatial, always difficult draw. Precedent usage helpful insofar they exclude include certain common types contract: repair, Endner v. Greco, D.C., F. 411, insure ship, Insurance Co. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 20 90, maritime, build ship not. People's Ferry Boston Beers, How. 393, 15 961. Without doubt hire either sailors officers man her within jurisdiction. Benedict, Admiralty, 366. A suit bond covering cargo general average governed Cie. Francaise de Navigation Vapeur Bonnasse, Cir., 19 777, pay another's breach charter not, Pacific Surety Leatham & Smith Towing Wrecking Co., 151 440. closest analogy found hand hospital services rendered injured seaman satisfaction liability cure, has held contract. Methodist Episcopal Transport 508. principle reference cases supposed fall side line exceedingly broad one. 'The only whether transaction relates ships vessels, masters mariners, agents commerce * *.' I 131.5 held: 9 contract, since merely promise money, land, former suffer injury personnel, course medical appears allegedly made after employment plaintiff terminated. It really makes difference so All remained performance shipowner undisputed supply supplied master's certificate, used obtain admittance patient That took furnish 'cure.' *' (275 502). 10 learned judges below, too narrow view matter. argued related stood place created known kind fringe benefit hire. Cortes Baltimore Insular Line, 287 367, 53 S.Ct., 173, 77 368. ordinarily discharged issuing certificate carrying public refuses entitles without just cause, further hold his Williams States, 133 319; Luth Palmer Shipping 210 224; Bouker 2, 241 831; see Calmar S.S. Corp. Taylor, 303 525, 58 651, 82 993. But countenancing intemperate aspersions against Hospitals, rejecting noncontractual grounds seeks predicate here, afford simply entrance hospital. cites more adequate proper charge 'deliberately refuse privilege, then assert lien vessel increased expense whim taste created.' supra, page 835. Presumably or, having entered, leaves elsewhere, recover proof 'proper adequate' available Cf. States; supra. No how skeptical burden could sustained, indigent likely risk losing rights chance sustaining burden, possibility apparently did, follow part forego might involved some additional expense, return make whole what appeared time cheaper alternative. words, consideration good faith forbearance press considered—perhaps erroneously—to full extent right Compare, American Law Institute, Restatement, Contracts 75, 76. So viewed, sufficiently peculiarly concerns put it, more, beyond pale 12 brings then, remaining, believe controlling, question: 'maritime local,' Western Fuel Garcia, 257 233, 242, 42 89, 66 210, sense application disturb uniformity Southern Jensen, 244 205, 37 524, 61 1086. II. 13 Although doctrines supremacy vigorously criticized—see 218, 530 (dissenting opinion); Standard Dredging Murphy, 319 306, 309, 63 1067, 1068, 87 1416—the qualifications exceptions built up imperative doctrine considered notably adequate. Gilmore Black, passim; Currie, Federalism Admiralty: Devil's Own Mess,' 1960, Supreme Review, 158; Application State Survival Statutes Maritime Causes, 60 Col.L.Rev. 534. Perhaps most often heard criticism supremancy this: fact is—in special least, Romero International Terminal Operating 358 354, 79 468, 368—federal therefore supreme virtue Article VI Constitution carries implication wherever interest involved, slight marginal, displace local interest, pressing significant. process surely accommodation, familiar many areas overlapping federal concern, somewhat analogous normal conflict laws situation where sovereignties divergent interests concern. Surely claim adequately served availability forum instance review assurance correctly assessed accorded due weight. 14 Thus, instance, blinks reality longshoreman, living ashore shoreside employers, performs work, these contacts lose concern longshoreman's status well-being. allowing wrongful death statutes, Tungus Skovgaard, 588, 503, 524; Hamilton, 207 398, 28 133, 52 264, survival actions Just Chambers, 312 383, 668, 687, 85 903, respectively, grant preserve based ultimately wrong committed defined attempted accommodation between dependent primarily rules governing recovery breach. Since foreclosing necessarily fortuitous matter, afforded disabled victim accident need less family die, intrusion remedial systems bring undesirable disuniformity scheme Altogether reasoning Brandeis Red Cross Line Atlantic 264 109, 44 274, 68 582, court properly compel arbitration clause reasoned clauses their gives rise damages, do substitute different effective remedy admiralty. 16 descended from early precedent Cooley Board Wardens, 299, 996, recently added Huron Portland Cement City Detroit, 362 440, 813, 852; also Kelly Washington, 302 87, 3, exemplify another variation accommodation. allowed Detroit impose requirements smoke control regulations coming city, even measured federally imposed standards ship's boilers equipment. There thus: 17 '* thrust inspection (with complied) clearly limited affording protection perils navigation. 18 'By contrast, sole aim ordinance elimination air pollution protect health enhance cleanliness community. 'Congressional recognition problem manifest legislation.' pages 445—446, 817. Turning case, several considerations point favoring remembered dealing obligations, hypothesis, voluntarily undertaken, tort regulations, obligations authority Federal Government. itself creates presumption favor applying tending toward validation Pritchard Norton, 106 124, 102, 27 104; Ehrenzweig, Conflict Part One: Validity, 59 973. As already said, essentially character indulging finespun distinctions terms about, denying characterization novelty. Considering nationality join port, into port necessary prompt falls ill during voyage, Iroquois, 194 240, 24 640, 48 955, seems us anywhere world, made. On hard perceive 'peculiarly concern,' unless York's lending accomplishment fraud, something insufficient overcome countervailing considerations. effect invalidate hardly analogized Fruit, supplementing remedies vindication rights. Wilburn Boat Fireman's Fund Ins. 348 310, 75 368, 99 337, apposite. justified lack provision presented. concurring opinion, id., 321, 374, commentators preferred refer decision absurdity insurance houseboat waters small artificial lake Texas Oklahoma. Admiralty 44—45. Needless say genuinely salty flavor that. 21 sum, phenomenon affairs, little room argument validity. conclusion reached thought rarity, suspicion contrived serve ulterior purposes. 501; 573—574, note remotely intimating merits claim, conclude error apply Frauds bar 22 Reversed. FRANKFURTER, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. Certainly Court's history progenitor lasting dissatisfaction disharmony particular area mischief caused uncritical loose observing 'the very matters designed establish.' 217, 529. looser doctrine, like observe law,' incumbent judiciary well-defined concreteness. fairly said Jensen favored doctrine. Quite contrary. steadily narrowed application, strikingly illustrated tour force our Davis Department Labor, 317 249, 225, 246. 25 today, relying reinvigorates 'ill-starred decision.' 259, 230 (concurring opinion). notion issue statute frauds 'disturb law' is, respectfully submit, abstract doctrinaire true demands affirm judgment below. 26 WHITTAKER, Like Appeals, 500, claimed barred frauds. 2. dissent. Apparently arising out negligence treating running shorter limitations applicable here. Compare U.S.C. 2401(b), U.S.C.A. Civil Practice Act, 48. provides: 'Every agreement, undertaking void, memorandum thereof subscribed person charged therewith, lawful agent, undertaking; '2. Is answer debt, default miscarriage person.' second subsequently discontinued 502. litigated, Union Fish Erickson, 248 308, 39 112, 261; Fidelity Guaranty American-Hawaiian 280 1023; Hastorf R. Long-W. G. Broadhurst 239 Quirk Clinton, Fed.Cas. 146, 11,518; Northern Star Canada Kansas Milling 534, accepted generality depend writing Judge Hough, distinguished judges, once said: (This) failure stress custom, matters, Erickson (supra), obvious correctness California permitted defeat shipmaster's libel discharge engagement year. (T)he simple engagements, orally made, old marine customs, passed recognized enforced nation,—so subject (if anything) immaterial.' Jurisdiction—Of Late Years, Harv.L.Rev. 529, 537. Writing sort equally British judge practice commercial men extensive financial nod head initialing slip, binding chartering engagements daily concluded informal manner Soc. Portuguesa Navios Tanques, Ltd. Hvalfslsk Polaris A/S, (1952) Lloyd's List Reports 73, 74 (per McNair, J.), confirmed Kent, Commentaries 159—160 (1828 ed.), French authority, Pothier, (Cushing trans.). True, hire, articles, long required statutes various nations, among them Congress, Stat. 131 (1790). Geo. II, 36 (1729). instituted seaman, Curtis, Merchant Seamen 37, way assumes absence writing. articles highest wages paid embarcation, subjecting master board penalties, 46 §§ 564, 578, 578; Norris, Seamen, 91, 119. An Ordonnance Louis XIV declares oath provisions credited, 100, Lord Tenterden, Ships 476, expressly states invalid results penalty master. exemplifies enforceability Benedict goes quote anonymous commentary Mediaeval Culm, sources pertaining navigation seamen

Category: 7