IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE …

Revised February 22, 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60063

JAMES HALL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC.; NOBLE DRILLING SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

*****************************************************************

00-60065

CHARLES BYRON STUART,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC.; NOBLE DRILLING SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

February 14, 2001 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

This admiralty case involves the calculation of maintenance. Plaintiffs James Hall and Charles Byron Stuart are seamen employed by defendant Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc. ("Noble") who were injured

during their employment on offshore rigs. The district court awarded maintenance of $30.50 to Stuart and $31.50 to Hall, based in part on the costs of their shelter, homes that they share with their families.

Noble argues that maintenance is provided solely for the benefit of the seaman, and thus the maintenance rate should have been reduced to reflect only the seaman's pro rata portion of the mortgage on the family home. We agree with Noble's premise that maintenance is provided solely for the benefit of the seaman, but we reject Noble's conclusion. In this case, the plaintiffs actually paid their entire mortgages; they were obligated to pay their entire mortgages; and their food and lodging expenses were reasonable. We affirm the ruling of the district court.

I Plaintiffs Charles Byron Stuart and James Hall are both seamen employed by Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc. Stuart lives in Petal, Mississippi, with his wife and two young children. Hall lives in Columbia, Mississippi, with his wife and adult son. Both live in houses for which they pay mortgages. Stuart was injured on October 3 or 4, 1998, while aboard the Noble jack-up rig EDDIE PAUL. Hall was injured on February 7, 1999, while aboard the Noble jack-up rig M/V BILL JENNINGS. Noble has paid them each $21 a day in maintenance. Stuart and Hall brought suit in admiralty against Noble in May and June, 1999, respectively. They made claims under the Jones Act

2

and the doctrines of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Hall and Stuart each sought an increase in their rate of maintenance. The cases were consolidated, and trial on the issue of the proper maintenance rates was held.

At trial, Stuart and Hall presented itemized lists of their expenses, which included housing and food, telephone, satellite TV, automobile, and other expenses. They also presented an expert witness who described their expenses and provided national and regional estimates of the cost of food and lodging. The food and lodging estimates based on national statistics varied from $27.85 to $49.23 for a single person.1 Noble presented evidence of the costs of various forms of lodging in the area and its own expert witness, who concluded that $13.17 to $18.52 per day would provide adequate maintenance.

Stuart claimed entitlement to $45.93 per day based on an itemized list of his expenses. Of this figure, he claimed $14.24 for mortgage, escrow, and real estate insurance; $5.43 for utilities; $9.47 for food;2 and $16.78 in telephone, cable TV, house maintenance, and automobile expenses.3

1 Their estimates for local costs were based on unscientific surveys that found average room and board costs of $28.72 to $56.62 in the Petal area and $56.33 in the Columbia area.

2 This reflected only food purchased for his own consumption. 3 These numbers total to $45.92; the $45.93 figure may be due to mathematical error.

3

Hall claimed entitlement to $51.45 per day based on a similar list of expenses. He claimed $20.27 for mortgage, escrow, and real estate insurance; $6.41 for utilities; $10.39 for food;4 $11.09 in telephone, satellite TV, house maintenance, and automobile expenses; and $3.29 for the prorated cost of some dental work.

The trial judge noted that maintenance does not provide for expenses such as telephone or automobile bills or the costs of supporting children. The judge then awarded Stuart a maintenance rate of $30.50 per day and awarded Hall a maintenance rate of $31.50 per day. Noble appealed.5 On appeal, Noble challenges the amount of the maintenance awards.6 Noble's primary argument is that since Hall and Stuart live with their families, their lodging expenses should be divided among the members of the household; the maintenance awards, then, should only reflect Stuart's and Hall's pro rata share of food and lodging expenses.

II

4 Like Stuart, Hall did not include food consumed by his family. 5 This is an interlocutory appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. ? 1292(a)(3). 6 Noble does not argue that Stuart and Hall are not entitled to maintenance. The parties agree that Stuart and Hall are seamen injured in the service of vessels. See Caulfield v. AC & D Marine, Inc., 633 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) ("A seaman who is injured or falls ill while he is in the service of the ship is entitled to recover `maintenance' from his employer or the shipowner."). No union contract specifying maintenance is at issue in this case. Nor is cure an issue.

4

Maintenance and its counterpart, cure, have a venerable history in the jurisprudence of admiralty,7 with origins at the beginning of the last millennium.8 In the last century, American courts have developed and expanded the right to maintenance and cure, adapting it to the changing duties of seamen in modern commerce. While centuries ago the typical seaman was a single man--perhaps without a home--who spent most of his life at sea, today the typical seaman may be someone very much like the plaintiffs in this case: a worker on a floating rig who has a home and family and spends significant stretches of time onshore.

This juxtaposition of the ancient right of maintenance, protecting the "poor and friendless" seaman,9 with the cases of modern seamen with families and mortgages is at the heart of this case. Courts have long held that in providing maintenance the ship owner must "furnish the seaman with food and lodging of the kind

7 This history is only briefly discussed here; other cases have studiously expounded it. The seminal discussions in American law appear in Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. 480 (C.C. Me. 1823) (No. 6,047), and The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (1903). An exceptional account of the history and law of maintenance and cure appears in Hudspeth v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. La. 1967). The ancient sea codes forming the historical foundation of maintenance and cure are described in Martin J. Norris, 2 The Law of Seamen ? 26:3-4 (4th Ed. 1985).

8 The antecedents to the medieval codes cited in The Osceola, 189 U.S. at 169, date back to at least the year 1010. See Martin J. Norris, 2 The Law of Seamen ? 26:3 at 5 n.4 (4th Ed. 1985).

9 Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. at 483.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download