The Margharita

United States Circuit Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsMaritime injurySeamenMaster's duty to obtain medical caremaritime lawseaman injuryduty to provide medical treatmentdeviation to port

Facts

Martinez signed on as a seaman aboard the bark Margharita for a voyage from Pisagua, Chile, to Savannah, Georgia. While aloft reefing a sail at night, he fell into the sea and, after being rescued, was found to have lost part of his left leg below the knee from a shark or similar marine animal. The evidence did not satisfactorily show that any negligent fastening of the yardarm caused his fall, and the court attributed the accident to the ordinary perils of navigation. The vessel carried medicines, antiseptic dressings, and instructions, and the crew treated the wound, controlled hemorrhage within four days, the fever and septic symptoms subsided, and Martinez later reached Savannah in generally good health, where a further amputation was performed to create a proper stump.

Issue

Was the master negligent either in causing Martinez's fall or, more importantly, in failing to deviate to Port Stanley or another intermediate port to obtain surgical aid after Martinez's leg was bitten off? Under the circumstances, did maritime law require the master to alter course to secure earlier treatment?

Rule

A seaman cannot recover for injuries attributable to the ordinary perils of navigation that he assumed. After an onboard injury, the master must provide proper medical treatment and attendance, but with respect to putting into port, all that can be demanded is the exercise of reasonable judgment considering the seriousness of the injury, the care available on shipboard, the proximity of an intermediate port, the consequences of delay to the shipowner's interests, the wind and navigation conditions, and whether competent surgical help is likely to be found there.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A deckhand aboard the freighter North Shoal suffers a crushed hand in the South Atlantic while the ship is still 18 days from the nearest port likely to have a surgeon. The captain has antiseptics, bandages, and detailed treatment instructions on board, the bleeding is controlled within a day, fever subsides after several days, and doctors later testify that earlier surgery would not have changed the permanent loss of fingers but would only have shortened the sailor's pain.

If the sailor sues the vessel owner for negligence based on the captain's failure to put into port, which is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. The governing rule rejects any automatic duty to put into the nearest port after a serious injury. The master must exercise reasonable judgment in light of the seriousness of the injury, shipboard care, distance to port, navigational conditions, likely availability of a competent surgeon, and the consequences of delay. Where onboard treatment controls the acute danger and earlier aid would not have avoided additional permanent injury, the majority held that continuing the voyage may be reasonable even if suffering is prolonged. (Derived from The Margharita (n.d.).)