RAMON CABARCAS PORTO, APPELLANT,
v.
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC., 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 injured aboard a Carnival cruise ship appealed a jury verdict finding in favor of Carnival on all claims for maintenance and cure and negligence damages. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court's jury instruction on maintenance and cure was erroneous because it incorrectly required the seaman to prove injury resulting from the failure to provide maintenance, when maritime law imposes an absolute duty to provide maintenance and cure regardless of fault.
The trial court erred in giving the jury instruction that required proof of injury resulting from the failure to provide maintenance and cure. Maintenance and cure is an absolute obligation owed to injured seamen regardless of the shipowner's fault, and therefore the jury should not have been instructed to find injury as a result of the failure to provide maintenance.
[1] A shipowner must pay maintenance and cure to a seaman injured in the service of the ship, regardless of fault.
[2] A jury instruction that requires a seaman to prove injury resulting from the failure to provide maintenance and cure, in addition to entitlement and non-provision, is err…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a seaman becomes injured while in the service of his ship, the shipowner must pay him maintenance and cure, whether or not the shipowner was at fault.”
Establishes the absolute duty of shipowners to provide maintenance and cure regardless of fault, the core legal principle supporting reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamon Cabarcas Porto, a seaman, was injured while reboarding a Carnival cruise ship. Carnival provided some maintenance and cure but Porto contended t…
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 Seaman'S Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a maritime case in which appellant, Ramon Cabarcas Porto, a seaman, sought damages from appellee, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (Carnival), for an injury sustained during the course of his employment. The jury found in favor of Carnival on all counts. We reverse and remand.
Appellant claimed to have suffered an injury while reboarding the ship. Carnival had provided maintenance and cure. However, appellant contended that the amount provided was insufficient. Appellant sought, pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law, additional maintenance and cure, punitive damages arising from Carnival’s failure to provide maintenance and cure, and compensatory damages arising from Carnival’s alleged negligence.
At trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements the appellant had to prove to establish a compensatory damage claim arising from Carnival’s failure to provide maintenance and cure. The trial' court instructed the jury as follows:
Therefore, in order to award damages to plaintiff for the failure of the defendant to provide maintenance and cure, you must first find:
(1) That the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance and cure;
(2) That it was not provided;
(3) That such failure resulted in injury to the plaintiff.
In this case, appellant sought recovery of compensatory damages arising from Carnival’s negligence. Appellant was not seeking compensatory damages arising from Carnival’s failure to provide maintenance and cure. On appeal, appellant’s primary contention is that the above instruction misled the jury into believing that appellant needed to prove an additional element, “injury suffered as a result of the failure to provide maintenance,” in order to award maintenance and cure.
We therefore conclude that giving the above instruction was error and prejudiced the jury’s findings on appellant’s maintenance and cure claim and punitive damages claim arising from appellant’s failure to provide maintenance and cure. When a seaman becomes injured while in the service of his ship, the shipowner must pay him maintenance and cure, whether or not the shipowner was at fault. Gaspard v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., Inc., 649 F. 2d 372 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 907, 102 S.Ct. 1252, 71 L.Ed.2d 445 (1982).
Finding no merit in appellant’s other contentions, we reverse the final judgment and remand the cause for a new trial on appellant’s claims for maintenance and cure, and punitive damages arising from appellant’s failure to provide maintenance and cure.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City of Lafayette v. Hernandez, 455 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1982)
- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States, 455 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1982)
- Gaspard v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 372 (5th Cir. 1981)