CLAUDIA DUARTE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A seaman receiving maintenance and cure who is injured in an unrelated accident is still entitled to those benefits for the additional injuries incurred.
Appellant, a seaman receiving maintenance and cure, was injured in an automobile accident. Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) refused to pay mainten…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maximum Medical Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Senior Judge.
Appellant is a seaman who had been receiving maintenance and cure in Miami for several months when she was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) refused to pay her maintenance and cure for expenses arising from this accident, the Appellant filed this suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RCCL. We reverse.
Maintenance and cure is an ancient duty under the law of admiralty that arises against a shipowner in favor of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or incapacitated, or whose condition becomes aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least until the time that the seaman has achieved maximum medical recovery. See Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). Admiralty courts have traditionally been liberal in interpreting the scope of this duty. Id. at 531-32, 82 S.Ct.
997. The seamen are wards of the court and maintenance and cure should be afforded as long as there is any ambiguity or uncertainty about the continuation of that status. Id. “The nature and foundations of the liability require that it be not narrowly confined or whittled down by restrictive and artificial distinctions defeating its broad and beneficial purposes.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 735, 63 S.Ct. 930, 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1943).
In the instant case, the Appellant was receiving maintenance and cure at the time of the accident because she had yet to obtain maximum medical recovery. Under such a situation, a seaman is still in the service of the ship and thus entitled to maintenance and cure for the additional injuries incurred. To hold otherwise would fly in the face of the long standing principles enunciated above. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to RCCL is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Rigby, 96 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…he ship "irrespective of whether the illness or injury is suffered in [*1149] the course of the seaman's employment.” See Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1, 4, 95 S.Ct. 1381, 43 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975); see also Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 761 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding ship owner responsible for paying maintenance and cure for aggravation and enhancement of shipboard injuries caused by automobile accident while seaman was ashore receiving maintenance and cure). . This was approximately…
-
God's Blessing Ltd. v. Salas (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…or of a seaman who becomes ill, injured, or incapacitated, or whose condition becomes aggravated or enhanced for any reason, at least until the time that the seaman has achieved maximum medical recovery.” Duarte v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 761 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). It includes the food, lodging, and medical services that a shipowner has the legal responsibility to provide to a crew member injured in its service. Grazette v. Magical Cruise Co. Ltd., 280 So. 3d 1120, 1124 (Fla. 5th DC…
Authorities Cited
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962)
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1943)