This case involves a drillship owner, Noble Drilling, refusing to pay an injured seaman more than $35 in maintenance. The district court ordered Noble to increase maintenance payments to $120.21 per day but Noble refused to do so and filed an appeal. The appeals court held that the district could not force Noble before trial to increase maintenance payments. The seaman will be allowed to recover damages from Noble for not paying increased maintenance as one of his damages at trial. A detailed summary is provided below.
A Texas appellate court overturned a trial court’s issuance of temporary injunction requiring a defendant to pay an increased maintenance amount.
A claim for maintenance and cure is typically brought in conjunction with Jones Act negligence claim but is a separate and distinct cause of action. The obligation to pay maintenance and cure benefits is based on a vessel owner’s duty to provide food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman who is injured in service to a vessel.
Maintenance is a daily stipend for living expenses whereas cure is the payment of medical expenses. This obligation has been a feature of maritime law for centuries and is grounded in humanitarian and economic concerns. If a shipowner wrongly fails to provide adequate maintenance and cure benefits, the seaman may be entitled on final trial, not only to the amount of withheld maintenance and cure, but also to compensatory damages for any injuries caused by the failure to pay proper benefits and even punitive damages if the failure to pay was willful and wanton.
While claims for maintenance and cure are based in federal substantive law, state law governs procedural matters in such cases brought in state courts.
The Plaintiff in the previously mentioned case reported experiencing severe neck and back pain while working aboard a drillship. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. Defendant began paying $35 per day for maintenance, however, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, requesting Defendant pay maintenance of $120.21 per day. The trial court granted the motion and issued a temporary injunction requiring Defendant to pay an increased maintenance amount. Defendant appealed.
Under Texas law, one of the requirements for a temporary injunction is that the requesting party show that it faces irreparable injury in the absence of such an order. Additionally, a mandatory injunction requires clear and compelling presentation of extreme necessity to prevent irreparable injury or extreme hardship.
In the present matter, the Plaintiff asserted he would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary injunction mandating increased maintenance and cure benefits because the benefits Defendant was already paying were not enough to meet his daily living expenses. Plaintiff listed amounts for his mortgage, insurance, and HOA dues.
The Court noted such circumstances are commonplace in cases involving Jones Act and maintenance and cure claims and stated there are no Texas appellate cases in which a temporary injunction was used to require or increase the payment of maintenance and cure benefits. The court also concluded that maritime law already provides exact measures for compensating a seaman for any injury caused by the absence or inadequacy of maintenance and cure benefits as discussed above through compensatory damages.
The court ruled the temporary injunction was inappropriate remedy because the Plaintiff did not establish an extreme necessity or hardship and because maritime law provides methods of compensation for this type of circumstance.
A copy of the decision is provided below:
Please feel free to reach out at (504) 553-1435, (713) 518-7751, ad@adamdavislawfirm.com and/or ryan@adamdavislawfirm if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Thanks,
Adam and Ryan
Adam Davis Law Firm
Comments