1. Core Principle: Duty of Medical Care in Maritime Law

A shipowner has a non-delegable duty to provide prompt and adequate medical care to:

• Seamen (crew members)
• Sometimes passengers (limited scope)
• Injured persons under ship control

This duty is very strict: it does not depend on fault.

Key legal foundation:

• Maintenance and cure doctrine (ancient maritime principle)
• Reinforced by modern US maritime law

CASE LAW 1: De Zon v. American President Lines (1943)

Facts:

• A seaman suffered an eye infection on board.
• The ship’s doctor misdiagnosed and treated him incorrectly.
• The condition worsened, causing permanent damage.

Issue:

Is the shipowner liable for negligence of the ship’s doctor?

Holding:

Yes.

Rule:

A shipowner is liable for negligence of the ship’s doctor even if the doctor is independently employed.

Importance:

• Establishes vicarious liability in maritime medical care
• Ship cannot escape liability by saying “doctor is independent”

Principle:

👉 If medical care is provided onboard, the shipowner is responsible for its negligence.

CASE LAW 2: Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line (1932)

Facts:

• A seaman became ill onboard.
• The ship failed to properly treat and care for him.

Holding:

Shipowner is liable.

Rule:

The duty of maintenance and cure includes:

• Food
• Shelter
• Medical treatment
• Hospital care

Importance:

This case defines the foundation of “maintenance and cure” doctrine.

Principle:

👉 Medical care is a strict obligation, not dependent on fault.

CASE LAW 3: De Centeno v. Gulf Fleet Crews (1986)

Facts:

• A seaman became seriously ill.
• The ship delayed proper medical evacuation.

Holding:

Shipowner liable for delay.

Rule:

A shipowner must act as a reasonably prudent person would in an emergency.

Importance:

• Introduces the concept of “timely evacuation duty”
• Delay = breach of maritime duty

Principle:

👉 Failure to act quickly in emergencies is negligence.

CASE LAW 4: Central Gulf Steamship Corp. v. Sambula (1968)

Facts:

• A crew member became seriously injured.
• Question was whether ship took proper steps for treatment.

Holding:

Shipowner liable if care is inadequate.

Rule:

Duty varies depending on:

• Severity of injury
• Availability of medical facilities

Importance:

Defines flexibility of medical duty at sea

Principle:

👉 The farther from land and more severe the injury, the higher the duty.

CASE LAW 5: Olsen v. American Steamship Co. (1999)

Facts:

• A seaman was injured.
• Ship failed to arrange timely medical transport.

Holding:

Liability established.

Rule:

Ship must get crew to a doctor when “reasonably necessary.”

Importance:

• Reinforces duty of evacuation
• Defines “reasonable medical response standard”

Principle:

👉 Calling emergency services too late = breach of duty.

CASE LAW 6: Matute v. Lloyd Bermuda Lines (1991)

Facts:

• Injured crew member sued a charterer (not shipowner).
• Issue: whether charterers must provide medical care.

Holding:

No liability for time charterers.

Rule:

Only parties who control the ship/crew (owners or operators) owe duty.

Importance:

• Limits liability
• Distinguishes shipowners vs charterers

Principle:

👉 Only those with control over vessel operations owe medical duty.

CASE LAW 7: Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star (1988)

Facts:

• Passenger sued cruise ship for doctor’s malpractice.
• Doctor was independent contractor.

Holding:

Traditionally, no liability for shipowner (later softened in modern law).

Rule:

Historically:

• Shipowner not liable for independent ship doctor negligence

Importance:

This case shows older restrictive rule, later rejected or limited in many jurisdictions.

Principle:

👉 Older maritime law tried to separate shipowner from doctor liability.

CASE LAW 8: Norfolk Shipbuilding v. Garris (2001)

Facts:

• Worker died due to negligence in maritime workplace.

Holding:

General maritime law allows negligence claims.

Rule:

A cause of action exists for negligent breach of maritime duty causing death.

Importance:

• Expands maritime tort liability
• Confirms general maritime negligence doctrine

Principle:

👉 Maritime law recognizes broad negligence-based liability.

2. Maritime Rescue Law (Search and Rescue Duty)

Apart from medical care, maritime law imposes a duty to:

• Rescue persons in distress at sea
• Provide assistance when safe

This is also reflected in international law:

• SOLAS Convention (Safety of Life at Sea)
• UNCLOS (Law of the Sea)

Principle:

👉 “A ship in distress must be assisted if safe to do so.”

However:

• There is no reward for saving lives (unlike property salvage)

3. Salvage vs Medical Rescue

4. Key Legal Principles (Exam Summary)

1. Non-delegable duty

Shipowner cannot escape liability by hiring doctors or contractors.

2. Strict duty of care

No need to prove negligence for maintenance and cure.

3. Emergency standard

Care must be reasonable under circumstances of sea travel

4. Liability extends to delay

Even late evacuation can be negligence.

5. Control test

Only parties controlling the ship owe full duty.

Final Summary

Maritime medical rescue law is built around a strong humanitarian principle:

👉 “Seafarers must never be abandoned without care.”

Courts consistently enforce:

• Immediate rescue duty
• Proper medical treatment duty
• Liability for negligence in onboard or evacuation medical decisions