The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
A. F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
and the
PROTECTION OF SEAMEN
Bulletin No. 869
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON ; 1946
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D. C. Price 20 cents
Letter o f Transmittal
U nited S tates D epartment of L abor,
B ureau of L abor S tatistics,
W ashington, D , C., June 1, 1946.
T he S ecretary
of
L abor:
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on the protection afforded
merchant seamen who are disabled because o f injury or disease while in the
service o f their vessels. T he report presents the status o f such seamen under both
foreign and domestic legislation, and examines the probable results o f applying
to seamen the recommendations o f an Interdepartmental Committee fo r a w ork
men’s compensation act fitted to the existing rights o f merchant seamen. This
Interdepartmental Committee was established pursuant to Senate Resolution N o.
299 in 1940. Although the Committee made specific recommendations, it did not have
the opportunity to determine, except in a very general way, how these recom
mendations would affect seamen.
The report was prepared by Joseph Zisman, form erly with the U. S. M aritim e
Commission, under the direction o f M ax D. K ossoris, Chief o f the Bureau’s Indus
trial Hazards Division.
A. F. H inrichs , A cting Commissioner.
H on. L. B. S chwelixnbach ,
Secretary of JMbor.
Bulletin N o. 869 o f the
United States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
CONTENTS
Page
P reface
...... . ...................................................................................................................... vii
C hapter 1.—A ccident and illness hazards o f seamen
W orking con d ition s.....................................
1
Organization o f shipboard l i f e . . . . ................................................................................ 2
W a g e s ................................................................................................................................... 2
Employment .............................................
3
The vessels .................................
4
Legislation and safety o f life at sea............................................................................ 5
A ccident reporting and investigation............................................................................ 6
Safety program s ................................................................................................................ 6
Injuries and diseases arising out o f and in service o f vessel................................... 7
Disability cases and vessels on which they occurred......................................... 8
Occurrences in relation to vessel characteristics................................................. 8
Size and type o f the vessels............................................................................ 8
D isability-frequency rates ...................................................................................... 9
Extent o f disability ...................
11
Duration o f d isa b ility .......................
12
Nature o f disabilities suffered............ .................................................................... 14
Injuries ....................
14
Diseases ............................................................................ '.................................. 15
Parts o f body affected.............................................................................................. 15
Occupational characteristics o f disabled seamen......................................................... 16
Occupational distribution o f disabled seamen..................................................... 16
Extent o f disability ........................
17
Characteristics o f maritime employment and seamen’s disability cases.................. 18
Periods o f disability defined.................................................................................... 18
Period to the end o f the voyage...................................................................... 18
Hospitalization period ...................................................................................... 19
Out-patient and convalescent period............................................................. 19
Distribution o f the cases............................................................................................ 19
Duration o f different periods o f disability........ ..................................................... 20
Extent o f disability .............................................................................................20
Trade o f vessel .................................................................................................... 21
Significance o f the periods o f disability................................................................... 22
Costs o f accidents and illnesses.........................................................................................22
Cost to employers ...................................................................................................... 23
Cost to the public ...................................................................................................... 24
iii
iv
Page
C hapter 2.— Present rights o f disabled Am erican seam en
Traditional rights o f disabled seamen........................................... .............................. 25
The right to maintenance and cure and w ages....................................................25
Em ployers’ liability and maritime law ....................................................................27
The duties o f th£ em ployer....................................... ....................... . ......... 27
The employer’s d e fe n se s..................................................................................... 28
Special legislation ...................................................................................................... 28
The LaFollette A ct .......................................................................................... 28
The Jones A ct o f 1920................................................................................ . . . 29
Lim itation o f shipowners’ liability statutes..................................................31
Settlement o f seamen’s disability cases under existing modified em ployers’
liability system ................................................................................................................ 32
Effecting settlements ................................................................................................ 32
Settlements under insurance policies....................................................................... 33
Settlements through seamen’s a ttorn eys............................................................... 34
Attorney fees.............. ................ ......... .............................................................. 34
Tim e required to negotiate settlem ents.. . ..... .................. ......... ....................... 35
Cases occurring before 1938..................... ............................................... . . 35
Cases occurring in 1938..................... .................................... ......................... 36
Cases involving serious disabilities...... ........................................................ 36
Seamen’s claims fo r damages fo r personal injuries and the courts.............. 36
Net recoveries under the existing modified employers’ liability system.............. 38
N et recoveries and extent o f disability............................................................
38
Net recoveries and attorney fees and cost o f litigation.................................... 39
Net recoveries and settlement items..................................................................... 39
Settlement items and extent o f disability..............................................................40
W ages to the end o f the voyage.......... ...................................................... .. 40
Maintenance allow ances.............................................. .................................... 41
N et indemnities................ .................................... ............................................... 41
Other costs....................
42
C hapter 3.— W orkm en’s compensation legislation and the merchant
seaman
Foreign legislation extending workm ens compensation to merchant seam en ... 43
The seamen’s traditional rights to wages, and maintenance and cure----- - 43
The seaman’s right to w ages.. . . . . . . . ................................................... 44
The seaman’s right to maintenance am! cure...... .......................................44
Death benefits under maritime la w ............................................................ 44
W orkm en’s compensation laws and the merchant seamen.................... ..
45
Coverage o f injuries and diseases........ .............................................
45
Benefits provided .............................................
46
M edical benefits ...................
46
Cash ben efits.................................................................................................. 46
Tem porary total disability.. . .........
46
Permanent partial disability........................................... , ............... 46
Permanent total disability.......... ........................
47
Death ben efits................................... — . . . *..................... ............ 47
Funeral benefits ....................................... .................................. . . . 47
Survivor’s benefits .................................
47
Financing ................................................................................................................ 48
Right o f action for damages under liability law s ................................ 48
V
Page
Am erican attempts to extend workmen’s compensation system to merchant
seamen ............................................................................................................................... 49
Early e ffo rts ...... ........................................................................................................... 49
Federal legislation requested by the seamen....................................................... 51
The seamen and the longshoremen’s and harbor workers’ compensation act 53
Latest congressional attempts to extend workmen’s compensation to seamen 54
International Labor Organization D raft Convention N o. 55................54
Proposed legislation to implement ILO D raft Convention N o. 5 5 ..;.......... 55
The Interdepartmental Committee’s b ill,.......... .............................
55
The H ouse o f Representatives and H .R . 6726 and H .R . 6881.............. 56
The Senate and H .R . 6881.............................................................................. 58
Arguments fo r and against extension o f workmen’s compensation to mer
chant seam en.............................
59
Report o f Interdepartmental Committee to study workmen’s compensation
fo r seamen........ ........................................................................................................ 61
C hapter 4.—A ctual Settlem ents versus W orkm en's Compensation
Benefits
Previous attempts to com pare the tw o systems....................................... ................. 63
The Interdepartmental Committee study....................................................................... 63
Probable awards under system proposed by Interdepartmental Committee versus
actual net settlements..........................................
65
Benefit provisions o f the hypothetical law ........................................................65
W aiting p e rio d .................................................................................................... 65
Benefit scale............................................................................................................ 65
N onfatal disability...................................................................................
65
Fatal cases......................................................................................................66
Basis fo r benefit scale............................................................................... 66
Total benefit, or aw ard..............................................................................67
Probable awards under hypothetical workmen’s compensation law ..............67
Actual net settlements and probable awards com pared....................................67
Settlement amounts versus compensation amounts...... ........... ................. 68
Cases gaining versus cases losing under the proposed system .......... ... 69
Cases involving disabilities o f different extents......................... ...............69
Cases settled through seamen’s attorneys..............................
Compensation and settlement items compared..................................................
70
70
Item s considered under each system............................................................. 70
Values o f compensation and settlementitem s.............................................. 71
Status o f
tem porary total disability cases.................................................... 72
Injury cases versus disease cases................................................................... 73
Conclusion ............
73
Comparison o f different categories o f cases........ ........................................................ 74
Cases on vessels engaged in various services..................................................... 74
Cases on vessels o f different types........ ............................................................... 74
Cases involving seamen o f different occupational levels................................. 74
Effects o f increasing the compensation rates.....................................
75
VI
Page
A ppendix 1.—Scope and M ethod
Seamen co v e re d ................................................................................................................. 78
Period co v e re d ................................................................................................................... 78
Reports on cases............................................................................................................... 78
Company rep orts............................. .......................................................................... 78
Attorney reports.......................................................................................................... 79
H ospital reports.......................................................................................................... 79
Scope o f survey................................................................................................................. 79
Incidence o f injuries and diseases.................................................................................. 79
Estimate o f maritime labor fo rce ................................................................................ 80
Employment on active deep-sea vessels............................................................... 80
Employment on active Great Lakesvessels......................................................... 81
Employment on active inland vessels...................................................................81
Estimates o f total labor fo rce ................................................... ............................. 81
Exposure to occupational accidents andillnesses........................................................82
Frequency rates............................................................................................................ 83
Estimate o f number o f cases................................................................................ 83
N et recoveries under existing system and probable awards under proposed
sy ste m ............................................................................................................................... 84
Net amounts actually received by seamen, or their dependents.................... 84
Probable awards under proposed workmen’s compensation system .............. 85
W ages to the end o f the voyage...................................................................85
Compensation fo r hospitalization period..................................................... 85
Compensation fo r out-patient and convalescenceperiod............................ 86
Compensation fo r permanent physical impairments..................................86
Compensation fo r death .................................................................................. 86
Other costs............................................................................................................ 87
Total benefits......................................................................................................87
Comparison ................................................................................................................. 87
A ppendix 2.—Detailed Tables
Table A .— Percentage distribution o f reported seamen’s tem porary total dis
ability cases by duration, 1938................................................................. 88
Table B.— Percentage distribution o f 3,690 reported injury cases, by nature
and extent, 1938...................................................................................... .
Table C.— Number o f reported disability cases, by occupational group, and
extent o f disability, 1938...........................................................................
Table D.— Percentage distribution o f reported seamen’s disability cases, by
period and by trade o f vessel, 1938.......................................................
Table E.— Average duration o f reported seamen’s disability cases, by period o f
disability and by extent o f disability, 1938.........................................
88
89
90
90
Table F.—Average duration o f reported seamen’s disability cases, by period o f
disability and by trade o f vessel, 1938................................................ 91
Table G.— Distribution o f reported seamen’s disability cases, by payment lag
and method o f settlement (cases occurring in 1938).......................... 91
Table H .— Distribution o f reported seamen’s disability cases, by amount o f re
covery (cases closed or pending in 1 9 3 8 )........................................ 92
Table I.— Average gross and net settlements in reported seamen’s disability
cases occurring in 1938, by extent and method o f settlement........ 93
Preface
The cessation o f hostilities terminated the special insurance provisions
extended under Public Law N o. 17 to seamen for injuries and diseases
incurred in the service of their vessels in activities connected with the
Second W orld W ar. Seamen disabled in the course o f their employ
ment therefore must depend now solely on their ancient maritime rights
and the modified type o f employers’ liability established under the Jones
Act. Disabled seamen do not come under any form o f workmen’s com
pensation legislation in the United States.
In nearly every other maritime country o f the world, disabled seamen
are compensated under some form o f workmen’s compensation legisla
tion. In 1938 the Senate o f the United States ratified Convention No. 55
o f the International Labor Organization concerning the liability o f ship
owners for injuries and diseases o f seamen while in their employment.
Attempts have been made since then to enact some form o f workmen’s
compensation legislation for this industry.
A fter considering such a proposal in 1940, the United States Senate
found that the characteristics peculiar to the employment o f seamen
made it difficult to apply to them the usual type o f workmen’s compensa
tion act. The Senate was confronted furthermore by the anomalous situa
tion in which shipowners proposed, and seamen’s organizations opposed,
such legislation. Searching fo r factual guidance, the Senate created an
Interdepartmental Committee to study the problem and to offer recom
mendations.
Unfortunately, the Committee had no opportunity to test its recom
mendations, and the exigencies o f the war precluded further considera
tion o f these proposals. N ow that the war is over, however, an objective
appraisal o f this Committee’s recommendations is in order because o f the
likelihood that the issue will be pressed again.
The study presented here not only examines the conditions under
which disabled seamen negotiate their settlements with their employers
and how these settlements work out, but also provides statistical compar
isons of the probable recoveries under the Committee’s proposed compen
sation act with the present system o f settlement. It thus offers a pertinent
service toward a better understanding o f the issues involved. The statis
tical data are based on the reports originally collected by the Interde
partmental Committee and subsequently turned over to the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics.
The Bureau and the author wish to acknowledge the valuable services
rendered in the preparation o f this study by Spencer H . Reed, Chief o f
the Labor Research Section o f the Division o f Economics and Statistics
o f the U . S. Maritime Commission; Commander W illiam W . Story,
U . S. N . R ., Chief o f the Casualty Review Section o f the Merchant
Vessel Inspection Division, U . S. Coast Guard; James L . Adams and
W . N. Evans, form erly Assistant General Counsels o f the W ar Shipping
Administration, and Professors Samuel McCune Lindsay and Leo W o lman, both o f Columbia University.
The report was prepared as a Bureau o f Labor Statistics study by
Joseph Zisman, formerly Assistant Chief o f the Labor Research Section
o f the Division o f Economics and Statistics o f the U. S. Maritime Com
mission, under the direction o f M ax D. Kossoris, Chief o f the Industrial
Hazards Division o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
vii
W O R K M E N ’S CO M PEN SATIO N AN D TH E
PR O TEC TIO N OF SEAM EN
Chapter 1.— A ccident and Illness Hazards o f Seamen
W orking Conditions
A seaman is generally employed for the duration o f a voyage, and in
the deep-sea trades accepts employment under the terms o f the “ shipping
articles” on which he has- “ signed on,” This shipping article is a contract
o f employment signed by the master o f the vessel, as representing the
employing ship operator, and each member o f its crew. It contains, in
addition to the terms o f the agreement, the approximate duration o f the
agreement and the destination o f the vessel, certain information identify
ing the seaman, the amounts earned during the voyage, the moneys ad
vanced him during the voyage, the net amount due him at the end o f
the voyage, etc. B efore starting on a voyage, the seaman “ signs on” the
shipping articles. U pon termination o f the voyage he “ signs o ff” as hav
ing received the “ net wages” due him. F or certain voyages, i.e., overseas
foreign and intercoastal, the law requires that seamen “ sign on” and
“ sign off” before a United States Shipping Commissioner o r his deputy.1
For other deep-sea voyages, the law simply requires that the master
make a written agreement with every seaman on board his vessel.2
From the moment the seaman reports fo r duty until the voyage ends,
he is on board ship “ in the service o f the vessel.” H e lives on board ship
in quarters assigned to h im ; he eats on board ship the food prepared on
board ship by members o f the cre w ; and he is on duty 8 hours per day.3
The watch system, which prevails, requires that he work 4 hours on
“ watch” after 8 hours off “ watch.” W hen a ship reaches a port en route,
the seamen cannot leave it without the permission o f the master.
The living accommodations for seamen vary with the different rat
ings, the officers often having individual staterooms, and the unlicensed
men sometimes living as many as eight in a room. W hile living con
ditions are good on the newer ships, on the older ships the forecastle
offers only the barest com forts. Special accommodations fo r the dis
abled or ill seamen are often lacking.4 The present law is still a relic
o f the past and requires that vessels carry a doctor only when 50 or more
“ immigrants” are carried on board.5 The sick or injured seaman, there
fore, is usually treated by one o f the officers and put ashore at the nearest
1 R. S. 4512 (46 U.S.C. 565); U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Marine Inspec
tion and Navigation: Navigation Laws of the United States, 1940 (p. 190).
»R. S. 4520 (46 U.S.C. 574); idem (p. 195).
*(46 U.S.C. 673); idem (pp. 172, 212). Although this provision is not applicable to the
members of .the -stewards** department, as a result of collective bargaining, the 8-hour day
generally prevails for these workers as well.
* This is especially true on the smaller vessels. Vessels carrying a crew of 12 or more
and ordinarily making voyages of more than 3 days between ports must be provided with a
special hospital compartment.
* Act of August 2, 1882, sec. 5 (46 U.S.C. 155); idem (p. *262).
1
2
port when conditions require it.6 The recent developments in radio com
munication and o f air transport have made it possible in certain emergen
cies to obtain medical advice via radio from ships carrying doctors (o r
from shore), to obtain the service of a doctor on board other ships sailing
in sufficiently near shipping lanes, or to receive Coast Guard assistance
in transferring ailing seamen via Coast Guard planes from the ship to
the United States Marine Hospitals.
Organization o f Shipboard L ife
Seamen on board ship have been described by an authority on mar
itime labor as “ a miniature society whose members are carefully organ
ized fo r the purpose o f discipline, division o f labor, and centralization
o f authority and responsibility.” 78
The hierarchy o f shipboard life descends from the master, the supreme
authority at sea, through the chief mate to the members o f the deck de
partment, through the chief engineer to the members o f the engine de
partment, and through the chief steward to the members o f the stewards'
department. The significance o f this organizational pattern is that it
rests upon absolute authority. I f ordered to carry out a dangerous as
signment, the seaman has no choice but to obey.®
This organizational pattern has fo r some time hampered the principle
o f collective self-help through collective bargaining, for the principle o f
labor organization is still held, by many, to be incompatible with the
principle o f undivided authority at sea. Not being well organized until
recently, the seamen have not been successful in furthering the m ove
ment for accident prevention.
Wages
Unlike other wage earners, seamen are not paid on regular pay days.
Although their wages are reckoned on a monthly basis, seamen are paid
their wages at the end o f each voyage. W hen signing on the shipping
articles, they may allot a fixed portion o f their wages to be paid reg
ularly to their families. U nder certain conditions, seamen may be ad
vanced during the voyage as much as half o f the wages they have
earned. Purchases made by them from the ships' stores are charged to
them. W hen the voyages end, they are paid the balance o f the wages
they have earned. Many seamen, therefore, have substantial sums o f
money due them at the end o f each voyage, so that many injured or
sick seamen are able to carry themselves financially fo r some time after
they have become disabled.
One o f the characteristics o f the industry is the wide range in the pre
vailing monthly wage rates. Before the war, the range o f wages on a
typical deep-sea dry-cargo vessel carrying a crew o f 37 seamen was
6 As a result of the hardships of sailing under war conditions, the War Shipping Admin
istration found it necessary to train the ships’ clerks to care for the sick and wounded. A new
rating, that of assistant purser-hospital-corpsman was created and beginning with June 1944 all
ships under the control of the War Shipping Administration were required to carry it.
7 Seamen, by Elmo P. Hohman, Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. V II (p. 611).
8 Here, the seaman’s creed, in the words of Andrew Furuseth, the late#president of the
International Seamen’s Union, may be recalled: “ A seaman must die in order that others may
live.”
a
from $55 fo r the messboy, to about $330 monthly for the master. On
passenger vessels this range was even greater. Excluding the master and
chief engineer, the range in monthly wage rates for the licensed per
sonnel o f a typical dry-cargo vessel was from $155 to $200 monthly.
For the unlicensed personnel in the deck and engine departments, the
range was from $55 to $82.50, and in the stewards' department, from
$55 to $135. The most common monthly wage rate was $72.50, with
over 13 percent o f the deep-sea seamen paid at that rate. On tankers,
wages were somewhat higher. Similarly, on special types o f freighters,
such as the Pacific coast lumber schooners and the Atlantic coast colliers,
and in special seasonal trades, such as the Alaskan and Great Lakes
trades, the monthly wage rates were also somewhat higher. The per
centage distribution o f seamen, employed on American-flag deep-sea ves
sels o f 1,000 gross tons and over, by monthly wage rates payable before
W orld W ar II is shown b elow :
Percent of seamen
Monthly wage rate, 1938:
$49 and under ..............
$50 and under $55 . . . .
$55 and under $65 ___
$65 and under $75 ----$75 and under $85 ----$85 and under $100 . . .
$100 and under $135 ..
$135 and over ..............
Total
....
2.7
....
....
....
....
14.0
17.2
10.5
17.6
....
8.6
....
12.0
....
19.4
.................................................................. 100.0
In addition to cash wages, seamen generally receive their food and
lodgings aboard ship.
Em ploym ent
Although Government regulation of the employment o f seamen has
existed for over 150 years, there are no published statistics with respect
to the number o f seamen employed on American-flag merchant vessels.
From the data collected by the United States Maritime Commission,
however, it is estimated that before the war the average monthly em
ployment on these vessels was approximately 132,200.9
The most reliable data relate to employment on deep-sea10 vessels o f
1,000 gross tons and over. In normal times, active vessels in this seg
ment o f the industry employed an average o f approximately 53,500
seamen per month. A n additional 3,200 must be added for deep-sea
vessels under 1,000 gross tons. The Great Lakes* trade is another seg
ment o f the industry for which reasonably accurate statistics are avail
able. A n average o f approximately 15,500 were employed during each
month o f the season from April to November, inclusive, o f each year.
There remains the third segment which includes all inland waters other
than the Great Lakes (inland rivers, inland lakes, and bays and sounds)
and while the employment statistics for this%group are rather meager,
employment may be estimated as in the neighborhood o f 30,000 monthly.
Thus, the monthly employment on documented American-flag vessels
9 This estimate does not include employment on vessels engaged in the following services:
Cable, dredging, elevator, fireboat, fishing, ice breaker, piledriving, pilot, police, patrol, water,
welding, and wrecking.
10 “ Deep-sea” operations include operations in the following trades: Coastwise, intercoastal,
nearby-foreign, and overseas-foreign.
4
may be estimated at approximately 102,200 seamen.11 Because o f the
unusually high labor turn-over in the industry, the total number o f
seamen attached to it was considerably in excess o f this figure— probably
by as much as 30,000.
Generally^ speaking, seamen may be divided into four m ajor occupa
tional classifications, depending upon the department o f the ship in
which they are em ployed: deck personnel, engine-room personnel, radio
operators, and stewards.1
12 Within these m ajor classifications, they are
1
divided into “ ratings.”
These ratings denote both rank o f authority and occupation. The
officer personnel is especially trained and is on a professional level.
The remainder o f the personnel has varying degrees o f training and
skill. The different occupations on board ship are many, especially in the
stewards' department o f large passenger vessels where the occupational
distribution resembles largely that o f the personnel o f a large hotel.
A substantial proportion o f the personnel o f deep-sea merchant vessels
are on a professional level. B efore the United States’ entrance into the
war, over 22 percent were on a professional level. Another 45 percent
were on a skilled or supervisory level, and over 30 percent were on an
unskilled level. The semiskilled group was very small.13
The Vessels
In 1938, approximately 18,800 American-flag documented merchant
vessels (exclusive o f fishing vessels) were engaged in the transportation
o f passengers and cargo. O f this number, over 16,300 are estimated to
have been operated some time during the year. Alm ost 80 percent o f all
the seamen necessary to man the documented vessels o f the United
States are required by these types o f vessels. The percentage distribu
tion o f personnel necessary to man the documented vessels o f the
United States is shown below, by type o f vessel, as o f June 30, 1938.
W ell over half o f the seamen are required on freighters and passenger
vessels, and about 10 percent on tankers.
Type o f vessel:
Freighter .
Passenger
Tanker . . .
T ow ing ..
Ferry ----Fishing ..
Other ___
Percent of seamen
necessary1
....
35.2
.... 21.8
....
9.4
....
10.8
....
....
....
2.3
17.0
3.5
A ll types .................................................................... 100.0
1 Source: Merchant Marine Statistics, 1938 (U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Marine Inspection and Navigation, Report Series No 6, p. 105).
11 Employment on cod, fishing, oystering, and whaling vessels are excluded from this esti
mate because of the inadequacy of the data available. The Bureau of Marine Inspection and
Navigation, however, reported that there were 6,931 such documented vessels on June 30, 1938.
If all were active and employing a full crew at the same time, they would require 29,228
seamen. Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. (U. S. Department of Commerce:
Merchant Marine Statistics, 1938, Report Series No. 12, pp. 42, 186.) Excluded also is the
employment on some 4,000 documented yachts, and 300,000 “ numbered” vessels. The latter
consist largely of pleasure crafts. No data are available with respect to employment on such
vessels. For the most part, they are operated locally and are manned by their owners. Whatever
employment they offer is relatively small and highly irregular.
12 On ocean-going passenger vessels a fifth classification— staff officers— will be found.
18
For a detailed description of the occupations on shipboard see Staffing Schedule for
Saltwater Freighters and Tankers (Federal Security Agency, August 1942).
5
Although the majority o f the documented vessels are small, under
50 gross tdns, the majority o f the seamen are employed on large vessels.
In 1938; vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over required 58 percent o f the
totil personnel necessary. These vessels, incidentally, included less than
9 percent o f the vessels documented in the United States.
Under normal conditions over half o f the merchant seamen are em
ployed on vessels operating in deep-sea trades. These include the fol
low ing: (1 ) Overseas foreign; (2 ) nearby foreign ; ( 3 ) intercoastal
(between Atlantic or Gulf ports and Pacific ports, via the Panama
Canal) ; and (4 ) coastwise. Thus, more than half the seamen are employed
on deep-sea voyages o f relatively long durations. The remainder are em
ployed on vessels operating between Great Lakes ports, on other inland
lakes, on inland rivers, in bays and sounds, and in and around harbors.
Certain types o f vessels are o f necessity largely confined to specific
trades. Thus, special types o f bulk dry-cargo vessels equipped with
self-loading and unloading equipment are found on the Great Lakes.
Similarly, tugs, barges, and ferries are usually confined to bays and
sounds, harbor, and river operations.
Most of the vessels operating in the deep-sea and Great Lakes trades
are large vessels, over 1,000 gross tons each.
Legislation and Safety o f L ife at Sea
Because o f the nature o f the industry, the question o f safety o f life
and property at sea has always been a matter o f real concern. The Inter
national Labor Organization has been much interested in this problem
and has been the leader in promoting minimum international standards
for legislation looking to the protection o f life at sea. These have been
the subject o f 10 International Conventions and nine Recommendations
dealing with such maritime matters as employment o f children and
young persons at sea ; officers’ competency certificates; hours o f work ;
manning scales; shipowners’ liability in sickness, injury, or death; sick
ness insurance; repatriation; welfare in ports; labor inspection; and
national seamen’s codes.14
Each o f the 45 nations ratified one or more o f these Conventions,
although only Belgium ratified all 10.15 The United States ratified 5
Conventions dealing with officers’ competency certificates; shipowners*
liability in respect to sickness, injury, or death; sickness insurance;
hours o f work and manning; and employment o f young persons at sea.
In the United States, the protection o f life and property at sea, before
the war, was delegated to the Bureau o f Marine Inspection and Navi
gation,16 whose Director was charged by Congress with the duty to
14 For the substance of the texts of these Conventions and Recommendations, see •The
International Seamen’s Code (International Labor Office, Montreal, 1942, passim).
15 Idem (p. 55). See also International Labor Conference: Reports on the Application of
Conventions, Report VI, 27th Session, Paris, 1945, Passim.
16 Until March 1, 1942, the Bureau was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Com
merce. On that date its functions were split in two (by Executive Order No. 9083). Those
relating essentially to vessel construction and inspection, safety at sea, and manning are now
administered by the U. S. Coast Guard; those relating to vessel documentation, vessel port
entrances and clearances, collection of tonnage dues and tolls are now administered by the
Bureau of Customs of the U. S. Treasury Department.
The above discussion deals with the Bureau as it was constituted before March 1, 1942.
This is deemed desirable because this study deals with peacetime conditions. Moreover, while
the functions of the Bureau have been divided among the two different agencies, they never
theless remain essentially the same, except insofar as war conditions necessitated.
Other Government agencies have certain functions affecting the safety of seamen.
6
(1 ) “ superintend the administration o f the steamboat inspection law s;” 17
(2 ) superintend “ the commercial marine and merchant seamen o f the
United States so far as vessels and seamen are not, under existing laws,
subject to the supervision o f any other officer o f the Government ;” 18 and
(3 ) decide “ all questions relating to the issue o f registers, enrollments,
and the licenses o f vessels.” 19
The scope o f the Bureau’s activities with respect to safety at sea is
therefore fourfold and embraces (1 ) vessel construction and equipment;
( 2 ) adequacy o f crew s; (3 ) passenger facilities; and (4 ) accident re
porting and investigating.
Accident Reporting and Investigation
Casualties, whether involving loss o f life or not, must be reported by
the master to the Bureau, and investigated. The Secretary o f Commerce
prescribes the rules and regulations for their investigation, in order to
determine whether any incompetence, misconduct, unskillfulness or will
ful violation o f law on the part o f any licensed officer, pilot, seaman,
employee, owner or agent o f owner, or inspector, officer o f the Coast
Guard, or other officer or employee o f the United States, caused or
contributed to the cause o f such casualty.20
Fatalities must be investigated by a Marine Casualty Investigation
Board, appointed by the Secretary o f Commerce, consisting o f a chair
man and two other members. A “ serious” casualty is investigated by
a marine board, appointed by the Secretary o f Commerce. Casualties
“ less serious” must be investigated by a marine board, consisting o f
representatives o f the Bureau o f Marine Inspection and Navigation and
appointed by its director. In practice, the lack o f personnel does not
permit the investigation o f all such cases. Generally, their investigations
appear to be limited to occurrences on vessels recently inspected.
Safety Programs
The ship operators have also taken an interest in safeguarding the
members o f their crews.21 Many belong to the Marine Section o f the
National Safety Council, the Accident Prevention Bureau o f the Pacific
Coast Marine Association, or the Lake Carriers’ Association. These three
organizations are active in accident prevention and provide safety in
spection, posters, monthly circular letters, safety contests, and promote
the system o f ship safety committees to discuss safety conditions on
board ship, recent accidents, accident reporting, etc.
Many ship operators have developed independent safety programs o f
their own. These, however, follow the general pattern o f the associationsponsored programs.
17 r . s. 4403 (46 U.S.C. 372). See also Navigation Laws of the United States— 1940
(U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, pp. 6-24).
For a recent historical treatment of the legal protection of life at sea, see Rudolph Wissmann,
The Maritime Industry (New York, The Cornell Press, 1942). Passim.
18 Act of July 5, 1884, sec. 2 (46 U.S.C. 2) Navigation Laws of the United States— 1940
( 9 . 6 ).
19 Acts of February 14, 1903, secs. 4, 10; March 4, 1913; June 30, 1932, sec. 501; and
May 27, 1936, sec. 1, idem (p. 6).
20 Act of June 20, 1874, sec. 10 (33 U.S.C. 361).
21 According to the Interdepartmental Committee to Study Workmen's Compensation, 88
companies out of 222 who replied to its questionnaire, when asked whether they had safety
programs, answered “ Yes,” 97 answered “No,” and 38 did not answer; see footnote 23.
7
The unions have also taken an active interest in accident prevention.
The National Maritime Union in its weekly publication, The Pilot, dur
ing the last few years has published cartoons calling the seaman's atten
tion to the dangerous and to the safe ways o f performing their various
tasks. Its suggestion that safety committees be established has been ac
cepted and put into effect b y several vessel operators. The unions have
taken an active part in calling to the Bureau o f Marine Inspection's
attention instances o f ship operators* infractions o f safety rules and,
from time to time, have suggested safety devices and safety regulations
to the Bureau.
Injuries and Diseases Arising Out o f and in
Service o f Vessel
Seafaring has often been claimed to be “ among the most hazardous
o f occupations."22 O n the basis o f shipowners' reports to the Interde
partmental Committee to Study W orkm en's Compensation for Seamen23
and data compiled by the United States Maritime Commission and by
the former Bureau o f Marine Inspection and Navigation, it is estimated
that in 1938 approximately 14,550 seamen suffered occupational injuries
or diseases of varying severity, as tabulated b elow :
Estimated number of cases
Total
Injury
Disease
14,550
9,300
5,250
...........................
270
...........................
35
...........................
395
........................... 13,850
155
'15
360
8,770
115
20
35
5,080
disability cases ............................... ...........................
F a ta l...................................................
Permanent total .............................
Permanent partial .........................
Temporary total .............................
As would be expected, most o f these disabilities were not o f a per
manent character. The estimates shown above indicate that over 95 per
cent o f them resulted in disabilities o f a temporary character. Less than
2 percent were fatal, and less than a fourth o f 1 percent resulted in per
manent total disabilities. The remainder, about 3 percent, resulted in
permanent partial disabilities. Generally, injuries and diseases were o f
equal severity.
Comparing the injuries with the diseases, it is found that a smaller
proportion o f the former were fatal or totally disabling. The reverse,
however, was true with respect to the permanent partial disability cases.
In each group, about the same proportion resulted in temporary total dis
abilities. On the average, the duration o f temporary total disabilities was
the same, about 46 days, for both the injury and the disease cases. B y
comparison, the average duration o f this type o f disability in manu
facturing industries, in 1938, was found to have been 21 days.24
In the maritime industry all diseases arising out o f and in the course
o f service o f the vessel have always been considered o f an occupational
22
See, for instance, James C. Healy: FocVle and Glory-Hole, (New York, Merchant
Marine Publishers Association, 1936, p. 103).
9 The results of the work of this Committee hereinafter called the Interdepartmental Com
mittee, are published in Interdepartmental Committee to Study Workmen’s Compensation for
Seamen: System of Workmen’s Compensation for Seamen (Senate Document No, 113 (77th
Cong., 1st sess.), Sept. 17, 1941).
Bi Max D. Kossoris and Swen Kjaer: Industrial Injuries in the United States During 1938
(Monthly Labor Review, October 1939, p. 882).
8
character. The courts have held that so long as diseases, whatever their
nature, arose out o f and in the course o f service o f the vessel, the sea
men had the same rights with respect to them as they had with respect
to injuries. The data which are analyzed here and which have been se
cured from ship operators, indicate that these employers treated diseases
and injuries in very much the same manner. The concept which prevails
in the industry is somewhat different from that generally prevailing
and may be considered by some as envisaging a coverage more akin to
health insurance than to workmen's compensation. Although the data
here analyzed include many diseases not considered occupational in
other industries, and although many o f the diseases, while arising out
o f and in the course o f service o f the vessel, were not really incurred
in the line of duty, this study accepts the prevailing practice in the in
dustry and treats diseases exactly in the same manner as injuries. A
comparison between the characteristics o f each, however, will be made.
DISABILITY CASES AND VESSELS ON W H IC H T H E Y OCCURRED
The seamen's occupational hazards vary with the services in which
the vessels on which they are employed are engaged. In the deep-sea
trades, the voyages tend to be o f long duration, especially in overseasforeign operations. Since, except on the few passenger vessels, no phy
sician is carried on board, the hazards of the elements become coupled
with the absence o f adequate medical facilities. Then, too, the dangers
of climatic diseases are present in certain operations. On inland waters,
the seamen handle the cargo on and off the ships so that their occupa
tional risks include those o f the longshoremen. The same is true with
certain coastwise services, especially in the Pacific lumber trade. On
the Great Lakes, however, self-loading and unloading equipment is found
on nearly all bulk-cargo carriers, but the voyages are short and the
vessels nearly always sail close to the shore.
OCCURRENCES IN RELATION TO VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS
Alm ost half o f the estimated 14,550 disability cases which occurred
in 1938, occurred on large vessels o f the so-called “ m ajor” types en
gaged in the deep-sea trades, i.e., on freighters, combination passenger
and freight vessels, and on tankers o f at least 1,000 gross tons each,
engaged in the coastwise, intercoastal, nearby-foreign, and overseasforeign trades. This is not surprising for, as has been pointed out earlier
in this chapter, in 1938 over half o f the seamen were employed on such
vessels. Yet, these comprised only about 8 percent o f the vessels in oper
ation during that year. Thus, it is estimated that over 53 percent o f the
cases occurred on vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and o v e r ; that 86 percent
occurred on dry-cargo vessels, combination passenger and freight vessels,
and on tankers; and that 53 percent occurred on vessels engaged in the
coastwise, intercoastal, nearby-foreign, and overseas-foreign trades.
Size and T ype o f the V essels
W hen the cases are examined further it is found that relatively more
injuries than diseases occurred on the larger vessels. It is also found
that, although the cases which occurred on the vessels o f the “ m ajor”
9
types were almost equally divided among the three types, a larger pro
portion was discovered on tankers; and that, while over a third o f the
injury cases occurred on dry-cargo vessels, almost 40 percent o f the
disease cases were found on tankers. The figures below show the per
centage distribution o f 14,550 seamen’s disability cases estimated to have
occurred in 1938, by type o f vessel:
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
M ajor types o f v e sse ls...........................
D ry c a r g o ................................... .
Combination passenger and freight
Tanker .................. ...............................
M inor types o f vessels ...........................
Barge ...................................................
Ferry ...................................................
Tug ........................................... .........
Injury
86.0
27.3
28.3
30.4
14.0
6.5
2.2
5.3
83.1
33.9
24.1
25.1
16.9
5.9
2.9
8.1
90.9
15.6
35.7
39.6
9.1
7.7
1.1
.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
A ll types
Disease
All cases
The relatively large proportion o f disability cases found on these
vessels is in large measure explainable by the fact that the vessels o f
the “ m ajor” types employ rather large crews. Table 1 shows that, as a
rule, the larger the crew, the greater the average number o f disability
cases per ship.
T able 1.—A verage Crew and Average Number o f D isability Cases per Ship,
by T ype o f Ship, 1938
Average crew
per ship
Type of ship
Average cases per ship
Total
Injury
Disease
All types ....................................................
33.7
0.9
0.6
0.3
Combination passenger and freight.......
Tanker ......................................................
Dry cargo ................................................
Ferry ..........................................................
Tug ............................................................
Barge ..........................................................
114.0
32.0
33.0
27.6
2 29.9
4.4
6.5
5.9
2.8
1.5
.9
.6
4.7
3.1
2.1
1.5
.8
.5
1.8
2.8
.7
(x)
.1
.1
j
1 Less than 0.1 per ship.
* Allows for the 3-watch system on 24-hour operations, whereas the crews for ferries do not.
DISABILITY-FREQUENCY RATES
One o f the measures o f the occupational hazards o f an industry is the
rate o f frequency at which occupational injuries and diseases occur, i.e.,
the number o f cases per million man-hours o f work. In this study it has
been found necessary to adopt a different scale and to express the fre
quency o f disability cases per 100,000 man-days o f employment. The
reasons for this departure are (1 ) most seamen are forced to live on
board ship and are exposed, therefore, to hazards even when they are
not w orking; (2 ) no records o f the hours worked on board ship are
available; ( 3 ) some work is performed beyond the usual w orkday;2*12
5
25 While the 8-hour day prevails for most seamen, some emergency work, and work neces
sary for the navigation of the ship, are not compensated when performed beyond the usual
workday. Moreover, overtime payments are not payable to all members of the crew. When
payable, they do not represent payment for work performed in excess of the agreed hours,
but rather payment for extra, or undesirable work.
697369° — 46—2
10
and ( 4 ) c : those ships where seamen d o not live on hoard the vessel,
such as certain tugs, two different crews may be employed in 1 day.
For the industry as a whole, it is estimated that in 1938, 36.4 dis
abilities occurred per 100,000 man-days o f employment. O f these, 23
were injuries and 13.4 were diseases. Thus, injuries occurred almost
twice as frequently as diseases. The rates o f occurrence varied greatly
from one type of vessel to another, as shown below in the estimated dis
ability-frequency rates (per 100,000 man days o f employment), by type
o f vessel, for 1938.
E stim ated
disability-frequ en cy rote
A ll types c f v e s s e ls .........................
36.4
Tanker ...............................................
Barge ...................................................
Combination passenger and freight
D ry c a r g o ...........................................
Ferry ...................................................
T u g .......................................................
The available data show that not only did more cases occur per ship
on tankers than on vessels o f nearly all other types, but that m ore cases
occurred on tankers per man-days o f employment than on vessels o f
any other type. This was due, in large measure, to the nature o f w ork
on this type o f vessel. The low over-all frequency rates fo r tugs and
ferries reflect the extremely low disease-frequency rates fo r these ves
sels. These are in part explained by the fact that since seamen employed
on these vessels do not stay on them after working hours, their exposure
to “ occupational” diseases is therefore materially reduced.
E xcept for the two types o f ships which had extremely high ( tanker)
or extremely low (tu g ) frequency rates, -some uniformity existed with
respect to the injury-frequency rates. The rates for barges, combination
passenger and freight vessels, freighters, and tankers, ranged from 22.3
to 27.9 injuries per 100,000 man-days o f employment. W ith respect to
disease cases, no uniformity in frequency rates existed. The rates fo r
these three types ranged from 6.9 to 29.1 disease cases per 100,000
man-days o f employment.
In examining the frequency rates it is interesting to note that both
the injury- and disease-frequency rates were extremely high on barges,
second only to those on tankers. Y et the work on barges is not generally
considered especially hazardous— quite the contrary. The high frequency
rates, however, may be explained by the fact that this type o f vessel often
furnishes employment to men in the more advanced age groups, not
especially skilled, whose duties resemble more closely those o f a guard
or caretaker than o f a seafaring man. Their hours are long and often
only one single bargee will be employed on one or more barges. In case
o f emergency these older men are less able to take care o f themselves.
Moreover, their advanced ages render them more susceptible to certain
diseases. O n combination passenger and freight vessels, the high fre
quency rates may be due to the fact that a higher proportion o f the
large passenger vessels are employed in the distant trades and on long
voyages. The estimated disability-frequency rates point to the relative
safety o f work on Great Lakes vessels as compared with w ork on deepsea vessels, and inland waters.
11
The nature o f the data does not permit a detailed break-down o f ex
perience for the different services, but the following rates (per 100,000
man-days o f employment) are indicative:
Total
Estimated disability-frequency rate
Injury
Disease
A ll trades ............................... 36.4
23.0
Deep-sea ...................
40.3
Great Lakes ........................... 13.2
Inland w a te rs.......................... 37.9
13.4
27.4
12.6
20.8
12.9
.6
17.1
EXTENT OF DISABILITY
A s already indicated, less than 5 percent o f the disability cases re
sulted in fatalities and permanent physical impairments. For the different
types o f ships, however, the proportion o f these cases ranged from un
der 2 percent with respect to ferries to over 13 percent with respect to
tugs. This is shown below in the percentages o f all disability cases which
resulted in deaths and permanent physical impairments, by type o f ves
sel on which they occurred in 1938.
Percent of all disability cases
Injury
All cases
Disease
4.8
5.6
3.2
T u g ....................................... .............. 13.3
Barge ................................... .............. 7.4
D ry c a r g o ............................ .............. 6.8
T a n k e r................................. .............. 3.2
Combination passenger and freight 2.4
Ferry ................................... .............. 1.8
12.7
9.2
6.3
4.1
3.4
42.9
5.0
8.9
2,3
1.3
0
A ll types o f v e sse ls.......... ..............
22
The high proportion o f deaths and permanent disabilities shown for
tugs was caused by the explosion o f a small number o f tugs. The low
proportion shown for tankers may be explained by the fact that the
short runs on which these vessels generally operated made proper med
ical care more readily available to their crews. The presence o f physi
cians on board the deep-sea passenger vessels, no doubt, helped to keep
to a low level the proportion o f serious cases on these vessels.
A s treasured by the extent o f the disabilities incurred, the proportion
o f serious cases to the total number o f cases varied noticeably among
the vessels engaged in the different trades. Although the disability-fre
quency rates for the Great Lakes trade would suggest that this service
offered seamen relatively safer employment than the others, a higher
proportion o f the disability cases incurred on vessels in this trade re
sulted in fatalities and permanent physical impairments than those in
curred on vessels in other trades. On vessels in inland trades, a smaller
proportion o f the disability cases resulted in fatalities and permanent
impairments than on vessels in other trades. The proportions o f serious
disabilities (deaths and permanent physical impairments) to the total
incurred on vessels in the different trades, in 1938, are shown below.
Percent of all disability cases
Disease
Injury
All cases
A ll trades ........................ ....................4.8
Deep-sea .......................... ....................5.5
Great L a k e s .................... ....................8.0
Inland w a te rs.................. ....................3/6
5.6
3.2
5.6
8.2
5.4
5.4
4.0
1.5
12
DURATION OF DISABILITY
A n analysis o f the data submitted to the Interdepartmental Committee
by the shipowners reveals that for the 5,458 injury and disease cases
occurring in 1938, for which sufficient data were available to determine
the period o f disability, the average duration per ease was 48.8 days.
The average time lost is shown below by extent o f disability fo r re
ported disability cases in 1938.
Number of
cases
Average number
o f days1
A ll e x te n ts........................ .............. 5,458
Injury ........................ ..............3,690
Disease ...................... .............. 1,768
48.8
48.4
49.7
Fatal ..................................
Injury ....................... ..............
63
Disease ...................... ..............
67
Permanent t o t a l.............. ..............
18
Injury ........................ ..............
8
Disease ...................... ..............
10
Permanent partial .......... ..............
189
Injury ........................ ..............
176
Disease ...................... ..............
13
Tem porary t o t a l.............. .............. 5,121
Injury ........................ ..............3,443
Disease ...................... .............. 1,678
33.4
12.0
53.6
178.1
104.6
236.8
119.7
111.6
229.6
46.1
45.7
47.0
1 For permanent total and permanent partial disability cases, this represents the average
duration of the healing period.
W hen the above averages are applied to the total number o f cases
estimated to have occurred in 1938, it is estimated that in 1938 a total
o f approximately 710,000 man-days were lost by the seamen. This does
not include the economic loss resulting from fatalities and permanent
physical impairments. O ver 639,000 man-days were lost as a result o f
temporary total disabilities alone.
On the average, seamen fatally disabled through injuries and illnesses
were incapacitated for over 1 month before death ensued— those fatally
injured for about 12 days and those fatally ill for almost 54 days. Be
fore being declared permanently and totally disabled, seamen were in
capacitated on the average, fo r almost 6 months— 3 ^ months in injury
cases and almost 8 months in disease cases. The healing period for sea
men permanently but only partially disabled lasted, on the average, al
most 4 months.
Seamen temporarily disabled were incapacitated for an average o f
46 days. Disabilities resulting from injuries and those resulting from dis
eases lasted approximately the same number o f days. A distribution o f
these cases by duration indicates that less than 5 percent o f the cases
lasted less than 1 week, 16.5 percent lasted less than 2 weeks, and about
45 percent less than 1 month/ About 25 percent o f the cases lasted oyer
2 months, but less than 4 percent over 5 months. The concentration o f
the temporary total disability cases was found at between 2 weeks and
1 month, and between 1 and 2 months with 23.7 percent and 30.1 per
cent o f the cases, respectively, in each group. These percentages are sig
nificant when it is recalled that in 1938 the average duration o f tempo
rary total disability cases for all manufacturing industries was found to
be 21 days.
13
Temporary total disability cases which occurred on the m ajor types
o f vessels were o f strikingly similar duration. This was especially true
with respect to injuries, which ranged from an average o f 45 days on
dry-cargo vessels to 46.8 and 48.7 on tankers and on combination pas
senger and freight vessels, respectively. W ith respect to diseases, how
ever, the average duration, although approximately the same for com
bination passenger and freight vessels and dry-cargo vessels, about 51
days, was only 41.9 days fo r tanker vessels. For the minor types o f
vessels, the average durations were considerably shorter. This is shown
by the following figures on reported temporary total disability cases, by
type o f vessel, 1938.
Average duration (in days)
All cases
Injury
Disease
A ll types o f vessels . . . ...............
46.1
45.7
47.0
Combination passenger and freight 49.0
D ry c a r g o ..................... ..................... 46.0
T a n k e r ......................... ...................... 44.0
Barge ............................. ..................... 41.9
T u g ................................. ..................... 33.0
Ferry .................................................. 29.0
48.7
45.0
46.8
44.3
33.1
30.4
50.6
51.0
41.9
38.9
20.0
26.8
The average duration o f the temporary total disability cases was
somewhat longer for disabilities incurred on deep-sea vessels than on
other vessels. Unlike the experience in other trades, the average duration
o f the disease cases was slightly longer than that o f the injury cases.
Diseases occurring in connection with employment on Great Lakes vessels
were, on the average, 10 days shorter than the injuries so incurred. Both
the injury and disease cases occurring in connection with employment
on inland vessels were o f approximately the same average duration. This
is shown by the figures on average duration, by trade, for temporary
total disabilities, 1938.
Average duration (in days')
All cases
Injury
Disease
A ll trades ........................ 46.1
45.7
47.0
Deep-sea .......................... 47.0
Great Lakes .................... 40.4
In la n d ................................ 38.0
46.6
41.4
38.3
49.0
31.3
37.7
The above figures indicate that disability cases occurring in connection
with deep-sea employment, where the voyages are o f relatively long
duration, lasted considerably longer than those occurring in connection
with employment in other trades. The relation between the average du
ration o f voyages and the average duration o f disability cases is clearly
shown below.
Voyage
duration1
Average duration (in days) of—t
Injury
Disease
cases
cases
All cases2
Deep-sea trade ........................... 55
47.0
46.6
49.0
Coastwise3 ...................................
Intercoastal .................................
Nearby foreign ...........................
Overseas fo r e ig n ..........................
43.0
46.2
40.2
59.6
42.8
48.9
41.2
56.5
43.4
42.4
37.6
65.6
27
88
21
89
1 1939.
2 1938.
3 Includes voyages to U. S. territorial possessions.
14
It will be noted at once that the trade (overseas foreign) showing the
longest average voyage duration is also the trade showing the longest
average disability duration. Similarly, the trade (nearby foreign) show
ing the shortest average duration is also the trade showing the shortest
disability duration. These relationships generally prevailed whether the
disabilities were caused by injuries or diseases. The reason for this rela
tionship is not clear.
NATURE OF DISABILITIES SUFFERED
The 5,458 disability cases reported for the year 1938 to the Interde
partmental Committee, already referred to, afford a splendid opportunity
to study the kinds o f injuries and diseases which seamen suffer in the
course of, or as a result of, their .service on board ship. It will be re
called that these consisted o f 3,690 injury cases and 1,768 disease cases.
Injuries
In examining the 3,690 reported injury cases, it was found that almost
half o f them were in the nature of strains, sprains, and bruises. Many
o f these were rather serious. They included almost half o f the fatal and
permanent injuries. Cuts, lacerations, punctures, and abrasions took the
next highest toll, almost 15 percent o f the cases. Fractures and disloca
tions were almost as numerous. Hernias accounted for over 10 percent
o f the injuries, and burns and scalds for 7 percent. Drownings, although
constituting only 1 percent of the cases, accounted for almost half o f the
death cases. Concussions also accounted fo r a very small share o f the
cases, 2 percent, but included over 10 percent o f the fatalities. Similarly,
it is found that amputations, although accounting fo r only 1.5 percent o f
the cases, included 12.5 percent o f the permanent total disabilities and
30 percent o f the permanent partial impairments. Likewise, fractures
and dislocations, although accounting for about 14 percent o f the cases,
included almost 9 percent of the deaths, 62.5 percent o f the permanent
total disabilities, and over 40 percent o f the permanent partial impair
ments. It is noteworthy that the permanent impairment cases were con
centrated in only four types o f injuries.
Except for amputations, concussions were more serious than injuries
o f any other nature. A s is shown in the table below, almost 10 percent
o f them resulted in death, and almost 3 percent resulted in permanent
partial physical impairments. Fractures were also relatively serious.
T able 2.—Percentage D istribution o f 3,690 R eported Seamen’s Injury Cases,
by Extent o f Disability and by Nature o f Injury
Nature of injury
All
cases
All cases ......................................
100.0
1.7
Amputations..................................
Burns, etc........................................
Cuts, etc..........................................
Strains, etc......................................
Fractures ......................................
Hernia ............................................
Drowning ......................................
Concussion ...................................
Not elsewhere classified..............
Unknown ......................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
Fatal
ities
.4
.7
.4
1.2
.5
100.0
9.6
12.9
16.7
Permanent
All cases
Total
Partial
Temporary
total
5.0
0.2
4.8
93.3
100.0
.8
4.1
1.5
14.9
0
0
2.7
2.3
0
1.8
0
0
.1
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
98.2
.8
4.1
1.4
13.9
0
0
2.7
2.3
0
0
98.8
95.2
98.1
83.9
99.5
0
87.7
84.8
83.3
15
Diseases
A ll kinds o f diseases were suffered by seamen in 1938. The 1,768
cases reported by shipowners as the basis fo r settlements fo r damages,
were divided among 50 different diseases ranging alphabetically from
adenitis to venereal diseases.
A s already pointed out, 1,678 o f these disease cases resulted in tem
porary total disabilities. O f the few fatalities (6 7 ), 26 were due to heart
diseases, 9 to pneumonia, 7 to tuberculosis, and the remainder to such
diseases as appendicitis, meningitis, cancer, rheumatism, stomach ail
ments, etc. The few permanent total disabilities (1 0 ) were caused mainly
by tuberculosis and heart ailments, and the permanent partial disabilities
(1 3 ) by eye diseases, infections, etc.
The 1,678 diseases resulting in temporary total disabilities were, o f
course, o f many different kinds. They included, fo r instance, 163 cases
o f appendicitis, 43 o f boils, 35 o f bronchitis, 34 o f simple colds, 113 of
dermatitis, 30 o f hemorrhoids, 30 o f kidney trouble, 45 o f otitis, 120 o f
miscellaneous stomach ailments, 63 of tonsilitis, 19 o f tuberculosis, 88
o f ulcers, and so on.
T able 3.— Percentage Distribution of 1,678 Diseases Causing Temporary
Total Disability
Percent
Disease, or disease of—
Rlood-forming organs ......................
"Rones j^nd cartilages..........................
Circulatory system .................. .
Communicable and infectious . . . . . .
Dental ..................................................
Digestive system ................ ........... ..
F aTj tinse, and throat.................. ..
Eye .......................................................
Genito-nrinary .............................. ..
Joints and bursae........................ ..
0.5
.4
4.6
12.1
.6
24.6
7.0
.5
4.9
2.1
Disease, or disease of—
Lymphatic system ..............................
Nervous system ..................................
Poisoning .......................................... .
Respiratory system ............................
Skin ......................................................
Tuberculosis ........................................
Tumors..................................................
Venereal ........................................
Miscellaneous ......................................
Total................................................
Percent
3.7
4.9
.6
7.0
7.7
1.1
1.7
1.2
14.8
iOO.O
This grouping indicates that most o f the seamen’s diseases tended to fall
into three categories: (1 ) Diseases related to nature and type o f fo o d ;
(2 ) diseases related to exposure to the elements; and ( 3 ) diseases related
to the nature o f the work.
The degree o f seriousness o f any o f these diseases is, from a practical
point o f view, best measured by their average durations. A s may be
expected, tuberculosis cases had the longest average duration (340 days),
and colds the shortest (20 days). Few diseases averaged as little as 20
days’ duration. M ost o f them, almost 92 percent, averaged over 30 days.
Therefore, diseases occurring on board ship, like injuries, were relatively
serious. Their relatively long duration can be attributed in part to the
difficulty o f obtaining prompt professional medical attention.
PARTS OF BODY AFFECTED
The data received by the Interdepartmental Committee from ship
owners indicate that every part o f the body was affected by the cases
resulting in permanent partial disabilities. In 39 percent o f the cases, the
fingers were involved. This is not surprising. It is noteworthy, however,
that more cases involved the legs than the arms, but that more injuries
involved the hands and wrists than the feet and ankles. The percentage
16
distribution o f reported permanent partial disability cases, by part o f
body affected, is as follow s:
Part o f body affected:
Skull ......... . . . .........................
Eye .............................................
Head, not elsewhere classified
Trunk .........................................
A rm ...........................................
Hand, including w r is t ............
Finger .......................................
Foot, including ankle .
T oe ...............................
General (rheum atism )
Total
....................
Number
of cases1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Percent
of total
3
10
4
22
12
16
70
21
13
5
2
1.7
5.6
2.3
12.4
6.7
9.0
39.3
11.8
7.3
2.8
1.1
. 178
100.0
1 Source: Interdepartmental Committee to Study Workmen’s Compensation for Seamen__
System of Workmen’s Compensation for Seamen (p. 39).
Occupational Characteristics o f Disabled Seamen
A s pointed out earlier, work is performed by the different members o f
the crew under greatly different conditions. Members o f the deck de
partment work on deck or in the cargo hatches, those o f the engine de
partment are'confined below deck and work around the boilers, propul
sion machinery, and other mechanical equipment. Members o f the stew
ards’ department remain below deck and work around the crew’s living
quarters, the kitchens, and the messrooms.
OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF DISABLED SEAMEN
Sufficiently detailed information was available from reports received
by the Interdepartmental Committee for over 6,000 cases which occurred
in 1938 on 2,880 vessels o f various types operating in different trades,
to permit an analysis o f the relative risks o f the various occupational
groups employed on merchant vessels. This analysis reveals that about
43 percent o f the disabled seamen were members o f the deck department,
33 percent were employed in the engine department, about 23 percent
in the stewards’ department, and the remainder in the radio, purser, and
other miscellaneous categories.
The departmental distribution o f the vessel personnel was ascertained
from the United States Maritime Commission’s “ Vessel Personnel Sur
vey, 1938,” for 9,884 vessels o f the types and trades included in the
present sample. W hen this broad occupational distribution o f vessel
personnel is compared with the occupational distribution o f the disability
cases reported, as is done in table 4, it is at once observed that the de
partmental distribution o f the seamen reported as disabled in 1938 ap
proached that o f those reported as employed in 1938. This indicates that
the occupational risk in one department was not much greater than that
in other departments, especially the risk of becoming injured. The prob
ability o f becoming ill, however, was somewhat greater in the engine
department than in the other departments o f the vessel.
The occupational risk was greater for the unlicensed than fo r the
licensed personnel, especially the deck officers. F or the unlicensed per
17
sonnel in the deck department the risk o f injury was relatively greater
than that o f disease, but in each o f the other two departments the risk
o f disease appears to have been slightly greater than that o f injury.
These relationships indicate that the higher the occupational level o f
seamen, the greater the probability o f becoming disabled through dis
eases than through injuries.
T able 4. —Percentage D istribution o f Seamen Shown in V essel Personnel Survey,
1938, and o f R eported D isability Cases, 1938, by Occupational Group
Reported disability cases
Occupational
group
V essel-personnel
survey
All cases
Injury
Disease
Deck department ............
Licensed ..................
Unlicensed ............ .
46.0
11.0
35.0
42.6
5.0
37.6
44.8
3.1
41.7
38.1
9.3
28.8
Engine department . . . .
Licensed ..................
Unlicensed ............
30.0
10.0
20.0
33.0
5.5
27.5
31.5
4.2
27.3
35.9
8.1
27.8
Stewards* department ..
Miscellaneous1 ................
21.0
3.0
22.8
1.6
22.4
1.3
23.5
2.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
ioo:o
All groups
.....
1 Includes pursers, radio operators, surgeons, etc.
EXTENT OF DISABILITY
Except for the small “ miscellaneous” group, a higher proportion of
the disability cases found in the deck department involved deaths, and
permanent physical impairments, than o f those found in each o f the
other groups. Similarly, disabilities occurring in the stewards' department
involved a higher proportion o f deaths and permanent physical impair
ments than those occurring in the engine department. This is shown in
table 5.
T able
5.—Percentage D istribution
o f R eported Seamen*s D isability Cases by
Extent o f D isability and by Occupational Group, 1938
Percent of cases which were—
Occupational
group
Number
of
cases
Permanent
Fatal
All
cases
Total
Partial
Temporary
total
All groups ....................................
6,009
2.2
3.5
0.3
3.2
94.3
Deck department ........................
Master ..................................
Other licensed personnel.. . .
Unlicensed personnel ..........
2,563
93
209
2,261
Z6
6.5
7.1
2.0
4.6
9.6
2.9
4.6
.5
2.1
.5
4.1
7.5
2.4
4.1
92.8
83.9
90.0
93.4
Engine department ....................
Chief engineer ....................
Other licensed personnel. . . .
Unlicensed personnel . . . . . .
1,979
32
295
1,652
1.8
6.2
3.1
1.4
2.1
0
2.0
2.1
.5
0
0
.1
2.0
0
2.0
2 .0
96.1
93.8
94.9
96.5
Stewards’ department ................
Chief steward ................ ..
Other supervisory personnel
Other......................................
1,368
98
53
1,217
2.2
4.1
5.7
1.9
3.4
4.1
1.9
3.4
0.2
1.0
0
.2
3.1
3.1
1.9
3.2
94.4
91.8
92.4
94.7
Miscellaneous1 ................................
99
3.0
5.1
0
5.1
91.9
1 Includes pursers, radio operators, surgeons, etc;
.5
18
Characteristics o f Maritime Em ploym ent and
Seam ens Disability Cases
The relatively high duration o f cases o f disability arising out o f and
in the course o f service on merchant vessels may be explained in the
light o f the peculiar characteristics o f maritime employment
Seamen are employed to perform work necessary for, or in connection
with, the navigation o f a vessel. For practically the entire duration o f
their employment, they are on floating structures, moving from one port
to another, on more or less distant voyages. W hile some medical assist
ance is obtainable on board passenger ships, most seamen are employed
on other types o f ships and therefore are generally beyond the reach o f
professional medical assistance.
A seaman may become disabled either at the beginning o f the voyage,
during the voyage, or at the end of the voyage. Disabled seamen may,
therefore, spend part o f their disability period on board ship and part
ashore. In many cases, disabled seamen remain on their vessels for the
rest o f the round-trip voyages for which they were engaged, and are
hospitalized or given the necessary out-patient treatment upon the re
turn o f the vessels to their original ports o f sailing, or other voyage
termination points. In other cases, the disabled seamen may be put
ashore en route (in a foreign or domestic port) fo r treatment, and
when sufficiently recovered they are brought back to their ports o f sail
ing or some other port agreed upon. In still other cases, the entire dis
ability period is spent wholly within the voyage period. In a discussion
o f the various periods o f disability suffered by seamen, it must there
fore be borne in mind that a seaman may spend the first period o f his
disability on board ship, the second period in a hospital, and the third
period' receiving out-patient treatment, convalescing, or both.
PERIODS OF DISABILITY DEFINED
Under existing laws a disabled seaman is entitled to wages to the end
o f the voyage and a maintenance allowance during the out-patient and
convalescent period. Under a workman’s compensation system designed
fo r seamen, such as that recommended by the Interdepartmental
Committee, a disabled seaman would be entitled to (1 ) wages to the
end o f the voyage; and (2 ) compensation for (a ) the hospitalization
period, if any, beyond the wage period, and (b ) the out-patient and
convalescent period, if any, beyond either or both the wage and the
hospitalization periods. For the purpose o f the present study, therefore,
it is convenient to divide the time o f disability into three periods. Each
o f these would be exclusive of the others and would coincide with a ben
efit period under either, or both, the existing employers’ liability system
and the hypothetical workmen’s compensation system. These three periods
are (1 ) to the end o f the voyage, (2 ) hospitalization, and (3 ) out
patient and convalescence, and have, in this study, the following limita
tions :
Period to the end o f the voyage.— This begins with the date the dis
ability began, and stops with the end o f the round-trip voyage for
which the seaman was engaged, or the date the seaman is declared fit
for duty, whichever occurs first.26 It coincides with the period fo r which
38 This, and each of the other periods, may also end with the death of the seaman.
19
the wages are payable under existing law and would presumably be pay
able under a seamen’s workmen’s compensation law. Part or all o f this
period may be spent on board ship. The disability, o f course, frequently
extends beyond this period.
Hospitalization period.— This begins with the seaman’s first day o f
hospitalization after the “ end o f the voyage” and includes the entire
period during which he receives in-patient treatment. It coincides with
the period o f hospitalization during which the seaman could receive
compensation under a seamen’s workmen’s compensation law.
Out-patient and convalescent period.— This begins with the first day
o f out-patient treatment, or convalescence, following either the period
“ to the end o f the voyage,” or the “ hospitalization” period, as the case
may be. It ends with the date (a ) the seaman is declared fit for duty,
or (b ) in cases involving permanent disabilities, when the wound is
healed, or medical care cannot effect a cure. It coincides with the period
for which the maintenance allowance is payable under existing law, or
with the out-patient and convalescent period for which the seaman could
receive compensation under a seamen’s workmen’s compensation law.
From the above definitions it is clear that the “ hospitalization” period
does not necessarily include the total number o f days a seaman was
hospitalized, but only those days o f hospitalization extending beyond
the date on which the seaman would have been discharged (because the
voyage had terminated) had he remained with the ship fo r the full
round-trip voyage fo r which he was engaged. Similarly, the “ out-patient
and convalescence” period does not necessarily include the total num
ber o f days o f out-patient treatment, convalescence, or both, but only
those days not included within the period “ to the end o f the voyage.”
DISTRIBUTION OF TH E CASES
The table below shows the proportion o f the seamen who were re
ported as disabled for the different periods defined above. It shows that
almost 65 percent o f the 5,458 reported cases involved seamen whose
disabilities occurred before the end o f the voyage, 33 percent required
hospitalization beyond this period, and 82 percent out-patient treatment
and convalescence, beyond either or both o f these periods. It is note
worthy that the proportion o f disease cases which required hospitaliza
tion beyond the period “ to the end o f the voyage” was noticeably
greater than the proportion o f injury cases falling in this group.
W hat may be said to be peculiar to the maritime industry, however, is
the high proportion o f cases (over 35 percent) which occurred on the
days on which the seamen terminated their employment, i.e., on the last
day o f the voyage. This peculiarity may be explained, in large measure,
by the increased activity on board ship on the last day o f the voyage,
and by the short duration o f Great Lakes and inland-water voyages.
Since temporary total disability cases constituted almost 95 percent
o f the cases, the distribution o f seamen suffering from such disabilities
among the different periods o f disability was almost identical with that
o f the total number o f seamen. For cases o f other extents, however,
certain differences are notable. A number o f death cases, for instance,
were instantaneous. Only a small proportion o f fatally disabled sea
men were disabled for one or inore periods o f disability before death
ensued. This was especially true with respect to the fatal injury cases.
20
A high proportion o f the permanently and totally disabled seamen (over
60 percent) required hospitalization beyond the period “ to the end o f
the voyage,” and 50 percent o f them required out-patient treatment and
convalescence, or both. Similarly,- less than 50 percent o f the permanently
but partially disabled seamen required hospitalization.
T able 6.— Distribution
o f Reported Seamen’s D isability Cases, by Periods of
D isability, 19381
All types of
disability
Period of disability
Number Percent
Injury cases
Number
Percent
Disease cases
Number
Percent
All periods .................................... ........
5,458
100.0
3,C90
100.0
1,768
100.0
To end of voyage ................................
Hospitalization ....................................
Out-patient and convalescence ........
3,523
1,826
4,492
64.5
33.4
82.3
2,437
1,018
3,1/1
66.0
27.6
85.9
1,085
808
1,321
61.4
45.7
74.7
1 The number of cases, and percentages, for each, period are not additive since seamen
may be disabled for one or more periods.
Because o f the short duration of Great Lakes and inland-water voy
ages, only a small proportion o f seamen disabled on such voyages
became disabled before their voyages ended. Thus, only about 20 per
cent o f the seamen disabled on Great Lakes vessels, and 12 percent o f
those disabled on inland-water vessels, became disabled before the end
o f their voyages ; yet, 73 percent o f the seamen disabled on deep-sea
vessels became disabled before the end o f the voyage for which they
were engaged.
DURATION OF DIFFERENT PERIODS OF DISABILITY
Just as the periods o f disability incurred by seamen are prime fac
tors in the settlement o f claims made by seamen under the existing sys
tem o f employers’ liability, so would they be under any workmen’s
compensation system especially designed fo r seamen, particularly in the
great number o f temporary total disability cases. The duration o f each
period o f disability is therefore o f paramount significance. O n the basis
o f the data collected by the Interdepartmental Committee, it is calcu
lated that the average duration o f each period o f disability was as
fo llo w s :
Average1 duration {in days)
All cases
Injury
Disease
A ll periods .......................................... 48.8
48.4
49.7
T o the end o f the v o y a g e .................. 16.2
Hospitalization
................................ 33.0
Out-patient andcon valescen ce____ 33.2
15.1
31.5
34.5
18.6
34.9
29.9
1 Each average applies only to the cases involving the particular period of disability.
The average duration o f these periods varied with (1 ) the extent o f
disability and (2 ) the trade in which the vessel was operated at the time
the disability was incurred.
Extent o f D isability
In the relatively few fatal cases in which seamen were hospitalized
or required out-patient treatment, these periods were rather long, almost
3 months each. They were substantially longer in disease cases than in
injury cases. The periods to the end o f the voyage were relatively
short, 12.5 days— shorter than in disability cases o f any other extent.
21
It must be pointed out, however, that in fatal cases the average dis
ability before death was quite short, only 33 days.
In permanent total disability cases, each o f the periods had average
durations longer than those o f the cases o f any other extent. The hos
pitalization period was the longest, and averaged almost S months. The
out-patient period averaged almost 4 months.
Permanent partial disability cases involved periods o f disability, which
averaged as long as 2 % months for the hospitalization period, and
3 months for the out-patient period.
The temporary total cases involved the shortest periods o f disability.
Disability before the end o f the voyage averaged one-half month, and
the hospitalization and the out-patient periods approximately 1 month
each.
A s would be expected, therefore, with the exception o f the fatal
cases, the greater the extent o f disability, the longer each period o f
disability.
Trade o f V essel
The average duration o f the period “ to the end o f the voyage” ranged
from less than 5 days on the Great Lakes to almost 27 days on inter
coastal voyages. It was practically as long whether the disability was
due to an injury or a disease, although some noticeable differences
existed in the nearby-foreign, overseas-foreign, and inland-water trades.
The duration o f this period bore a direct relation to the duration o f the
voyage.
The average duration o f the period of hospitalization was fairly uni
form for the different trades, ranging from about 29 days for dis
ability cases arising on vessels in inland-water trade to about 35 days
for those arising in overseas-foreign trade. Except fo r the coastwise
and inland-water trades, the average duration o f the hospitalization
period was noticeably longer fo r the disease cases than for the injury
cases.
The average duration o f the period o f out-patient treatment and con
valescence was longest for cases arising on the Great Lakes and shortest
fo r those arising in the nearby-foreign trade. The average duration o f
this period was longer fo r injury cases than fo r disease cases, except
for cases arising on overseas-foreign voyages.
It is peculiar to the maritime industry that a large proportion o f
those disabled in the course o f their employment are forced to remain
for some period o f time on the vessels on which their disabilities
occurred whether or not professional medical assistance is available.
Table 7 shows that in over 45 percent o f the cases reported for the
T able 7.—D isability Cases Involving P eriod on Board Ship and Average Days o f
Duration o f Such Period
[Reported cases occurring in 1938]
All cases
Type of disability
Number
Cases involving period on board ship
Average
duration
Number
Percent i
Average duration
of all
.
of period
cases
All types ................................ ..
5,458
48.8
2,486
45.6
10.4
Injury............................................
Disease .........................................
3,690
1,768
48.4
49.7
1,624
862
44.0
48.8
10.8
9.7
22
year 1938, the disabled seamen spent part o f their disability period on
board ship. The periods spent on board ship averaged 10.4 days.
SIGNIFICANCE OF T H E PERIODS OF DISABILITY
In viewing the peculiar characteristics o f maritime employment from
another angle, in addition to that showing its influence on the extent,
nature, and duration o f the disabilities incurred, some light is thrown
on the effect a waiting period, as a qualification fo r benefit, would have
on a workmen’s compensation system for seamen. W aiting periods are
imposed in order to reduce the loads on the workmen’s compensation
systems by (1 ) discouraging malingering in the early stages o f the dis
abilities, (2 ) eliminating claims for the large number o f disabilities o f
short duration, and (3 ) not paying benefits for the first few days o f
each disability.
It has been observed that (1 ) in almost two-thirds o f the cases, the
disability included at least the period “ to the end o f the voyage” for
which the seaman had been engaged— a period fo r which, under the
existing employers’ liability system, full wages were payable; ( 2 ) rela
tively few o f the cases involved claims for disabilities o f short durations;
and ( 3 ) part o f the duration o f the disabilities were spent on board ship.
Obviously fo r the disabled seamen remaining on board ship fo r some
part o f the duration o f their disability, malingering can easily be con
trolled.
Th e fact that there were few claims involving cases o f short durations
suggests that, b y and large, seamen who were disabled for only a few days
(except those permanently disabled) find no special advantage in filing
claims fo r settlements, because they are entitled to wages to the end o f
the voyage*
T o impose a waiting period immediately after the beginning o f a dis
ability would require legislating out o f existence the traditional seamen’s
right o f wages to the end of the voyage, a right long recognized by the
courts. O n the basis o f the cases surveyed, it appears that this would
affect two-thirds o f the cases.
T o impose the waiting period after the end o f the voyage would effect
a reduction in benefit payments. Although it would not affect seamen
whose disabilities would not last beyond the end o f the voyage, it would
penalize seriously disabled seamen, who would be most in need o f finan
cial assistance.
Costs of Accidents and Illnesses
N o examination of the magnitude and character o f the occupational
risks incurred by the American seamen would be complete without some
attempt to evaluate the monetary costs o f the injuries and diseases suf
fered by them in the service o f the vessel on which they are employed.
In the maritime industry, as in other industries, such costs are borne
by ( 1 ) employers; (2 ) disabled employees or their friends and relatives,
and ( 3 ) the general public. A s will be shown in the next chapter, dis
abled seamen appear to be rather well protected by existing laws. The
cost to employers include payments to the seamen as settlements for
disabilities incurred in the service of their vessels, as well as other costs.
The former compensate the seamen and their dependents, not only for
the direct time lost as a result o f the disabilities, but, as will be shown
23
later, for pain and suffering and other considerations. The pecuniary cost
to the seamen may therefore be considered to be absorbed, in a large
measure, by the employers, so that only the costs to (1 ) employers and
(2 ) the general public will be considered. For the year 1938, these costs
are estimated to have amounted to well over $5,246,300— $4,548,600 to
the employers and $697,700 to the public.
COSTS TO EMPLOYERS
Generally, the costs to employers involved one or more o f the fol
lowing: (1 ) Payments to seamen; (2 ) premiums to insurance carriers;
(3 ) attorneys, fees; and (4 ) cost o f operating a claims department. The
Interdepartmental Committee attempted to obtain data on each o f these
items. Useful data on payments made to seamen was obtained for 6,239
cases. Data on the other three items were very unsatisfactory. Because o f
the practice o f carrying blanket insurance policies, fo r which a single
premium was paid, covering all risks during the voyage, the reporting
companies were not able to indicate the cost o f insurance covering
injuries and diseases o f seamen. Further, the insurance carried was
usually o f the “ deductible” type. That is, the employer paid up to a
fixed maximum of, say $250, o f the settlement and the insurance carrier
the balance, so that in the m ajority o f the cases the full settlement was
paid entirely by the employer. In many cases, on the other hand, the
payments made by the insurance carriers offset the insurance premiums
paid by the employers. Moreover, employers found it difficult to allocate
to seamen’s disability cases, attorney fees and costs o f operating a claims
department, as these attorneys and claims departments handled a great
many additional matters.
The present treatment o f cost to the employers will therefore be lim
ited to what may be called the direct costs o f the disabilities incurred by
seamen in the service o f the vessels o f their employers. These direct
costs include ( 1 ) payment o f full wages for the period to the end o f the
voyage; (2 ) maintenance allowance, while the seaman was receiving out
patient treatment, convalescing, or both; ( 3 ) indemnity or damages for
pain and suffering, permanent physical impairment, death, or other con
siderations ; and (4 ) other costs such as burial expenses, medical appli
ances, artificial limbs, medical treatment and care not obtained from the
United States Marine Hospitals.
The total gross settlements for the 6,239 cases exceeded over $2,100,000.
The average direct cost to the employers, therefore, exceeded $335 per
case. The average cost for injuries and diseases o f different extents o f
disability are shown below for 6,239 reported seamen’ s disability cases.
ent o f disability:
Fatal ...............................
Permanent total ............
Permanent partial ........
Tem porary total ............
Average gross settlement (6,239 cases)
AU types
Disease
Injury
of disability
.............. $2,752
.............. 5,172
.............. 2,599
..............
196
* $4,156
7,586
2,698
213
$489
2,978
1,230
156
It will be recalled that it was estimated that there were approximately
14,550 injury and disease cases o f various extents in 1938. W hen the
above averages are applied to this estimate, the following amounts o f
estimated gross settlement are obtained:
24
Estimated gross settlement (14,500 cases)
All types
Injury
Disease
Extent o f disability:
of disability
A ll cases ..................................... $4,548,585
Fatal .............................................
Permanent total ..........................
Permanent partial ......................
Tem porary total ........................
700,415
173,350
1,014,330
2,660,490
$3,597,260
$951,325
644,180
113,790
971,280
1,868,010
56,235
59,560
43,050
792,480
Thus, it is estimated that the direct monetary costs to employers, o f
injuries and diseases suffered by seamen in the service o f their vessels
during the year 1938 was approximately $4,548,600.
COST TO THE PUBUC
American merchant seamen are entitled to free medical care at the
U . S. Marine Hospitals, operated by the U . S. Public Health Service.
W hen possible, seamen disabled in the service o f the vessel in which
they are employed must obtain their necessary treatment and care at
these institutions, unless their employers are willing to make other pro
visions for them. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that nearly all
the hospital treatment and care was obtained from U . S. Marine H os
pitals. Employers do not reimburse these hospitals for the care given to
their employees, even though such care is necessitated by disabilities
which arose out of, or in the course o f, service on their vessels. A s these
hospitals are supported by the United States Government, the cost o f
their operation falls on the general public.
N o data are available showing the cost o f care o f American merchant
seamen disabled in the service o f their vessels, but the United States
Public Health Service reports that for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1938, the average per diem cost o f in-patient treatment o f all patients at
U. S. Marine Hospitals was $3.59.27 From this report, it is estimated
that the average duration o f in-patient treatment o f American merchant
seamen was 37.4 days.2** Since at least a third o f the disabled seamen
required hospitalization, it follows that the 14,550 seamen disabled in
1938 received at least approximately 180,000 days’ relief at U . S. Marine
Hospitals. A t $3.59 per diem the total cost o f hospitalization o f Ameri
can merchant seamen, disabled in 1938 in the service o f their vessels,
may be estimated at more than $646,200.
For out-patient treatment, the U . S. Public Health Service estimates
that the cost averages approximately $1.00 per treatment.29 From United
States Public Health Reports,30 it is estimated that, on the average, each
treated American merchant seaman received out-patient care 4.3 times
during 1938. The cost o f out-patient treatment was therefore $4.30 per
patient. Since at least 82.3 percent o f the disabled seamen received out
patient treatment, the cost o f out-patient treatments may be estimated at
more than $51,500.
The above estimates are believed to be somewhat low since, as pointed
out above, the percentages o f seamen hospitalized, and o f those receiving
out-patient treatment are minima. The total cost to the public for the year
1938 may be estimated, therefore, at more than $697,700.
27 Annual Report of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service of the United States,
1938 (p. 117).
Idem (pp. 119, 125).
29 By conference with U. S. Public Health officials.
30 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, op. cit., p. 125.
Chapter 2.— Present Rights o f Disabled American
Seamen
Traditional Rights o f Disabled Seamen
Although seamen do not presently have the protection o f workmen’s
compensation laws, they have other rights:1 (1 ) The right to mainte
nance and cure and to wages to the end o f the voyage; and (2 ) the
right to sue for damages under employers’ liability. Those in effect con
stitute a modified form o f employers’ liability.
TH E BIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE AND WAGES
This is an ancient right. W hile it is traced directly to the Laws o f
Oleron (13th century), laws dealing with seaworthiness o f vessels, wages
o f seamen, and the master’s liability in cases o f collision can be traced
to the Rhodian Laws (about 900 B .C .) which were, in part, reproduced
in the Justinian Code, and even as far back as the first Babylonian
Empire, around 2100 B.C.1
2 During the Middle Ages, these laws were
revived by the citizens o f Barcelona and eventually collected in the
Consolado del Mare which became binding upon the Mediterranean
maritime nations. Impressed by the reputation o f these laws, Eleanor
o f Aquitaine ordered the compilation o f the judgments o f the Maritime
Court o f the Island o f Oleron, which became known as the Laws o f
Oleron. They were introduced by her in England when she ruled that
country as regent while her son Richard was engaged in The Crusades.3*8
These laws proved peculiarly adaptable to British commerce and were
eventually incorporated in the Black Book o f the British Admiralty.
W hen the English settlers came to this country, they brought with
them English laws which form ed the basis o f our present laws and gov
ernmental processes. Our admiralty courts are the descendents o f the
admiralty courts which existed in the Colonies by virtue o f commissions
from the Crown. A fter the Declaration o f Independence, each Colony
became a separate and independent State until the adoption o f the Con
stitution in 1789. W hen they organized their judicial systems the Free
Colonies adopted the jurisdictions o f the colonial vice-admiralty courts
as their own. The early American admiralty courts were therefore gov
erned in their proceedings and decisions not only by the regulations o f
the Congress o f the United States, but also by “ the laws o f Oleron and
the Rhodian and the Imperial Laws so far as they have been heretofore
1 Hearings on H.R. 6881 “An Act to Implement the Provisions of the Shipowners' Liability
(Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936” before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Commerce, U. S. Senate (66th Cong. 3d Sess.), July 1940 (pp. 114-129; 143-150; 216-247).
2 For r£sum6s of early maritime laws see Erastus C. Benedict, The Law of American
Admiralty (6th Ed.), New York, Baker Voorhees Co., Vol. I and III passim; Robert M. Hughes,
Handbook of Admiralty Law (2d ed.), St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing Co., 1920 (pp. 1-10);
Walter MacArthur, The Seaman’s Contract, 1790-1918, San Francisco, 1919 (pp. IX X X IV ).
For a detailed and authoritative compilation see Jean Marie Pardessus, Collections des Lois
Maritimes, Paris, 1828. Passim.
8 Reference should also be made to the “Laws of Wistby” (about 1400) which are said to
have been compiled from the Laws of Oleron and were observed by the Germans, Swedes,
Danes, Flemish, and other northern peoples; and the laws of the Hanseatic League (about
1600). In all these laws, the provisions concerning seamen were almost identical. See Partlessus, idem, Vol. I Passim.
697369°— 46— 3
25
26
observed in the English Courts of Admiralty, and by the laws o f nature
and nations/’ 4
Article 7 o f the Laws o f Oleron reads as fo llow s:
I f any member o f the crew should become ill in the service o f the vessel, the
master must set him ashore; and furnish him with lodging, a ship’s boy or hire a
woman to tend him. H e must furnish him with food of the same quantity and
quality he would furnish him on board ship if he were well, but the seaman re
serves the right to be paid his wages, and, if he should die, his w ife or next o f
kin shall be paid his wages.5*
Under this principle a seaman who becomes ill or injured in the service
o f the vessel, regardless o f the circumstances, is entitled to (1 ) mainte
nance; (2 ) cure or care; and (3 ) wages at least to the end o f the
voyage. It is the duty of the master, or the shipowner, to make certain
that the seaman receives adequate maintenance and cure and, if no U . S.
Marine Hospital can be reached, these must be provided at the expense
o f the shipowner. This principle has been firmly established by a series
o f court decisions.
The broad general right o f maintenance and cure, and wages at least
to the end o f the voyage, was clearly established in 1903 by the United
States Supreme Court in its famous Osceola? decision, in which it held:
That the vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is
wounded, in the service o f the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure,
and to his wages at least so long as the voyage is continued.
Later court decisions elaborated upon this decision. F or example, it
has been ruled that the duty to provide maintenance is coextensive with
that to provide ca re; that proper care must be provided for a 4‘reasonable”
time, i.e., time during which treatment may effect a cure. The seaman,
however, must accept care at a U . S. Marine Hospital, if possible;7 but
negligence on his part8 or even drunkenness, if not in itself the m ajor
cause o f the injury, does not deprive him o f his right to maintenance
and cure.9 I f the injury or illness is due to willful misconduct, the
seaman is not entitled to maintenance and cu re;101 but the shipowner
must, nevertheless, see that the seaman is given proper medical treatment
and attendance, or be liable for damages.11
The right to wages means the right to full wages from the date o f
injury, or illness, to the end o f the round-trip voyage for which the sea
man was engaged, whether or not he remains on board ship, and whether
or not he is able to work. This was asserted several decades ago by a
series o f court decisions.12
This right to maintenance and cure and wages to the end o f the voyage
is in addition to the seaman’s rights to recover at law from the master,
4 Robert M. Hughes, op. cit. (p. 10).
5 Pardessus, op. cit Vol. I (p. 327).
•The Osceola (1903) 189 U. S. 158, 175; 23 Sup. Ct. 483.
„ „
7 Skolar v. Lehigh R. R. (1933), 60 Fed. (2d) 893; also Colmar S. S. Co. v Taylor
(1938), 303 U. S. 525.
a Sorensen v. Alaska S. S. Co. (1917), 243 Fed. 280.
• Manhattan Canning Co. v. Wilson (1914), 217 Fed. 41; The Quaker City (19.31),
1 Fed., Supp. 840.
10 Thus it was ruled that a friendly scuffle (Meyer v. Dollar S. S. Line (1931), 43 Fed.
425); drunken brawl (Lottie v. American-Hawaiian S.S. Co. (1935), 78 Fed. (2d) 819); venereal
disease and a willful wrongful act ( The Alector (1920), 263 Fed. 1007) deprived the seaman of
his right to maintenance and cure.
........
11 The Osceola (Supra) p. 56; Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line (1933), 287 U. S. 367.
12 See for instance, Callon v. Williams (1871), D. C. D. Mass. Fed. Case No. 2324; The
North America (1872), D. C. E. D. N. Y. Fed. Case No. 10514; The Governor Ames (1891),
D. C. D. Wash. N. D. 55 Fed. 327. This right applies also to the crews of fishing vessels
working on shares, the wages due being equal to the seaman's share of the catch of the
vessel to the end of the voyage (Olsen v. Whitney, et al. (1901), D. C. N. D. Col. 109 Fed. 80).
27
or the shipowner, for injuries suffered through his unlawful or negligent
acts; the right to the form er being “ grounded solely upon the benefit
which the ship derives for his (the seaman’s) service and having no
regard to the question whether his injury has been caused by the fault
o f others or mere accident.” 18
e m p l o y e r s ’ l ia b il it y a n d
m a r it im e
law
In order to recover an indemnity for injuries resulting from his
employer’s unlawful and negligent acts, the seaman must establish his
employer’s liability under the law. In the absence o f a workmen’s com
pensation act, the conditions under which an injured employee can
recover at law are based upon (1 ) the duties o f the employer and (2 )
the employer’s defenses. Under maritime law these rules prevail although
the Jones A ct o f 1920 somewhat affects the employer’s defenses. The
Limited Liability Acts, which may be invoked in cases o f collision and
other marine disasters, have the force o f another employers’ defense.
The D uties o f the E m ployer
The duty o f the employer to use “ reasonable care” in protecting his
employees against jn ju ry is a generally accepted principle.*14 “ Reasonable
care” requires the guarding o f “ only those dangerous conditions over
which the employer, by the exercise o f reasonable care, should have
knowledge.” 15 The employer, then, has the duty o f exercising reasonable
care in furnishing a safe place to work. In the language o f the maritime
law, the employer has the duty o f furnishing a “ seaworthy” ship.16 The
definition o f “ seaworthiness,” however, is still a matter for the courts to
establish. The various court decisions, so far, make the concept o f “ sea
worthiness” parallel to that o f “ reasonable care.” 171
8
In Corpus Juris we find the following definition embracing the lan
guage o f several court decisions:
T o be seaworthy within rules governing recovery for injuries to seamen arising
from unseaworthiness o f the ship, the ship must be staunch and sound, and properly
equipped, provisioned, and manned, and must have her cargo properly stowed
away. But it has been said that “ seaworthiness” is a relative term, escaping exact
definition and declared that the standard o f seaworthiness varies with the kind
o f ship and voyage involved.18
This definition, after listing certain conditions which a seaworthy ship
must meet, proceeds to obscure the term it has just clarified by adding
the concept o f “ relative seaworthiness” varying with the kind o f ship
and voyage involved. W hile it is clear, therefore, that it is the duty o f
the shipowner to provide a seaworthy ship as a safe place to work, the
burden o f proof that the ship was unseaworthy is on the seaman; and
in proving unseaworthiness, he is faced with the necessity o f establishing
the conditions which constitute unseaworthiness. H aving established
these conditions, he must overcome the employer’s defenses.
18 A. Heaton (1890), C.C.A., 43 Fed. 592. See also Harden v. Gordon (1823), 2 Mason
541; 11 Fed. Case 480.
14 Priestly v. Fowler (England 1837), 3 Meeson and Welsley 1, 6.
15 Magee v. Chicago & Northwestern R.R. Co. (1891), 82 Iowa 249, 48 N W 92.
18 Burton v. Greig (1920), 265 Fed. 418.
17 Tn Schirm v. Dene Steam Shipping Co. (1914), 222 Fed. 587, the court defined
seaworthiness as “equivalent of the familiar common-law obligation of an employer to furnish
his employee with a suitable place to work. Like that obligation, it is expressed in terms of
reasonable care, the care that a reasonably prudent person would take under the circumstances”
(p. 589).
18 56 Corpus Juris, p. 1089, sec. 654.
28
The Em ployer’s D efenses
Until the passage o f the Jones A ct in 1920, seamen— like most other
workers not covered by workmen’s compensation laws— had to overcome
several common-law defenses by employers before they could obtain
damages for work injuries or diseases. A seaman had to prove that the
disability did not arise out o f an inherent hazard in the industry or
occupation, and that the employer could have eliminated the hazard with
the exercise o f reasonable care. H e had to prove, fufther, that he did
not knowingly accept the risk in performing the particular task at which
he was disabled. H e had to prove that the accident or disease was not
caused by a fellow servant, even though that fellow servant was a supe
rior officer whose orders the seaman was compelled to obey. And, last,
but by no means least, the seaman had to overcome the defense that his
own negligence had contributed to the disability. T o overcome the em
ployers’ defenses, therefore, the seaman had to submit a p roof so air
tight that it was almost impossible for him to recover.
In case o f death, the situation was even worse. Under common law,
an action for personal injury lies with the person injured. Until the pas
sage o f the Death on the H igh Seas A ct and the Jones A ct in 1920,
m odifying the maritime law, recourse could be had only to State laws
providing damages if death occurred in waters within the jurisdiction o f
the State.
SPECIAL LEGISLATION
T w o laws were enacted by Congress to give the seaman some relief
from the operation of the employer’s defenses.19 These are (1 ) the Sea
men’s A ct o f 1915, popularly known as the LaFollette A ct, and ( 2 ) the
Merchant Marine A ct o f 1920, popularly known as the Jones A ct.
T w o other statutes are also o f special interest. They are the Death on
the H igh Seas A ct o f 1920, and the Statutes for Limited Liability.
T he LaFollette A ct20
The employers’ defense which imposed a special hardship on seamen
injured in the service o f their vessels was the fellow-servant rule. A fte r
the U . S. Supreme Court ruled in the Osceola case that “ all the mem
bers o f the crew, except perhaps the master, are as between themselves
fellow servants,” it became clear to the seamen that some legislative
relief was necessary to protect them from the negligence and improvi
dent orders o f those in command. W hen the LaFollette A ct o f 1915 was
passed it provided, in section 20, “ that in any suit to recover for dam
ages for any injury sustained on board vessel or in its service seamen
having command shall not be held to be fellow servants with those under
their authority/’
The relief afforded by this act, however, was short-lived. Its applica
tion was soon contested in the Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship C o 21
case which was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1918. This case
involved a seaman who lost a leg as a result o f an injury sustained
while carrying out an allegedly negligent and improvident order o f a
superior officer. The seaman in his suit for damages invoked section 20 *8
1
30 There were, in addition, two unsuccessful attempts by Congress to permit the application
of State compensation laws to maritime) employment.
bo ch. 153; 38 Stat. 1164.
81 Chelentis v, Luckenbach SS Co. (1918) 247 U. S. 372, 38 Sup. Ct. 501.
29
o f the LaFollette A ct. N o question o f unseaworthiness o f the ship or her
appurtenances was raised by the claimant; nor did he make any claim
for maintenance and cure, or wages. Thus, he had set aside his maritime
rights and based his claim on common law as modified by the act. In its
decision against him, the Court ruled that the act did not indicate Con
gress' “ intention” to give the complaining party an election between
common-law and maritime rights. It held that the seaman's rights were
those under “ the law o f the sea,” that while section 20 o f the act declared
that those in command shall not be held to be fellow servants, and “ full
effect must be given this whenever the relationship between such parties
becomes important, . . . maritime law imposed upon a shipowner liabil
ity to a member o f the crew injured at sea by reason o f another member's
negligence without regard to their relationship; it was o f no consequence
therefore to a petitioner whether or not the alleged negligent order came
from a fellow servant; the statute is irrelevant.” In a later case, a cir
cuit court o f appeals citing the above decision as a precedent added further
that “ there would be . . . little security for careful owners if after
furnishing a seaworthy ship and proper appliances, they were still liable
for the act o f the master in not using the proper appliances furnished,
or in using them for purposes for which they were not furnished.” 222
3
The Jones A ct o f 1920
These decisions were the signals for pressure upon Congress to change
the law. A n effective change was achieved through section 33 o f the
Jones A ct (M erchant Marine A ct o f 1920),23 which amended section 20
o f the LaFollette A ct by providing that—
(1 ) Any seaman injured in the course of his employment may elect to maintain
an action for damages at law ; with the right to trial by ju ry ; and the application
o f all statutes “ modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases
o f personal injury to railway employees” ;
(2 ) If death results from the injury, the above rights are transferred to the
personal representatives o f the deceased seamen; and
(3 ) Jurisdiction, in such cases, are under the court o f the district in which the
employer resides, or has his principal office.
The railway employees’ rights and remedies which were transferred
to the seamen by the Jones A ct are those granted by the Federal Employ
ers’ Liability A ct o f 190824 which' provides that—
(1 ) Railroads in interstate commerce are liable in damages to any employee
suffering injury while in its employ, or in case o f his death, to his personal repre
sentative, fo r injury, or death, due in whole or in part to the negligence o f any
o f its “ officers, agents, or employees,” or to “ its negligence in its care” o f its
equipment, rights o f ways, etc.;
(2 ) In cases in which the railroad is guilty o f violation o f safety provisions,
contributory negligence shall not operate as an employer’s defense; in other
cases, the employee’s recovery shall be reduced in proportion to the amount o f
negligence attributable to him ;
(3 ) In cases o f violation o f safety statutes, assumption o f risk (by the em
ployee) shall not operate as an employer’s defense.
By passing the Jones A ct, Congress clarified section 20 o f the LaFol
lette A ct. It gave the seaman the election between common-law and mari
time rights which the Supreme Court, in the Chelentis v. Luckenbach
decision asserted had not been granted by the earlier statute. Moreover,
**John A. Roebling’s v. Erickson (1919), 261 Fed. 986.
23 Ch. 250; 41 Stat. 1007.
fi4,35 Statutes at Large ch. 149, 45 USC sec. 51 et seq.
30
it made applicable in cases o f personal injuries to seamen, the rights and
remedies applicable in cases o f personal injuries to railway employees—
i.e., the removal or restriction o f the employers' defenses.
The constitutionality o f the Jones A ct was quickly challenged by the
employers in the Johnson v. Panama RR Co. case, but was upheld by
the lower courts and eventually by the U. S. Supreme Court.25 This
Court ruled that the right to elect relief either according to the “ old rules"
or the “ new rules" is not a right o f election between maritime law and
a “ nonmaritime system" but between “ alternatives accorded by the mari
time law as modified."
Later court decisions defined its scope and interpreted its provisions.
Thus, the Jones A ct applies to all seamen regardless o f occupational
rating and nationality, so long as the injuries occurred on American-flag
vessels, or in American waters. For instance, it covers pilots and masters
o f vessels,26 foreign seamen on American-flag vessels,27 and seamen on
foreign-flag vessels owned by Americans and operating in American
trades.28 It never applies to seamen employed on foreign vessels and
injured either on the high seas or on foreign waters.29
A ction under the Jones A ct may be brought in a State court or in
admiralty cou rt;30 but if the injury occurred on a vessel owned by the
United States Government, action may be brought only in admiralty under
the Suits in Admiralty A ct.31 The right to trial by jury is not extended to
cases tried in admiralty courts.32
Diseases such as those resulting from unsanitary living or working
conditions are considered “ personal injuries" within the meaning o f the
Jones A ct.33 Cases involving death must be started within 2 years; other
wise they can be tried only in admiralty.34
In order to recover damages under the Jones A ct an injured seaman
must be able to prove that his employer was guilty o f negligence under
common law, not merely that the ship was unseaworthy.35 The usual
employers' defenses, however, are either removed or modified. Thus, the
fellow servant36 and assumption o f risk37 defenses were abolished by
the a ct; and the principle o f comparative negligence was substituted fo r
the defense o f contributory negligence.38 The employer’s failure to
observe the safety statutes definitely and completely deprives him o f his*8
7
5
4
2
1
0
25 Johnson v. Panama RR Co. (1923), 289 Fed. 964; affirmed (1924), 264 U. S. 375.
" T h e Black Gull (1936), 82 Fed. (2d) 758; Warner v. Goltra (1934), 293 U. S. 155.
For a list of maritime workers who have been considered to be seamen by the courts, see E. C.
Benedict, op. cit. Vol. I (pp. 243-244). Before the enactment of the Longshoreman’s and
Harbor Workers Act, longshoremen and other harbor workers were considered to be seamen
when injured on board a vessel (American Sugar Refining Co. v. Nassif (1930), 45 Fed. (2d)
321; The International Stevedore Co. v. The Haverty (1926), 272 U. S. 50; Uravic v. F.
Jarka Co. (1931), 282 U. S. 234).
87 Clark v. Montezuma Transport Co. (1926), A. M. C. 954, 217 N. Y . App. Div. 172
(2d Dept.)
28 Gerradin v. United Fruit Co. (1932), 60 Fed. (2d) 927; the court accepted jurisdiction
in a case involving an American citizen (Shorter v. Bermuda & West Indies SS Co. (1932),
57 Fed. (2d) 313), but declined jurisdiction in a case involving a German citizen who had
signed on a Danish vessel at a Chilean port and was injured in Jacksonville, Fla. {Peters v.
The Paula (1937), 91 Fed. (2d) 1001).
99 Hogan v. Hamburg American Line, 272 N. Y, Suppt 690, 152 Misc. 405. Certiorari
denied (1935), 295 U. S. 749.
80Engel v. Davenport (1926), 271 U. S. 33.
81 Sevin v. Inland Waterways Corp. (1937), 88 Fed. (2d) 988.
82Baltimore SS Co. v. Phillips (1927), 274 U. S. 316; (1927), 47 Set. 600.
88McCall v. Inter Harbor Navigation Co. (1936), 50 Pac. (2d) 697.
84 Rogosich v. Union Dry Dock & Repair Co. (1933), 67 Fed. (2d) 377.
85Kunschman v. U. S. (1932), 54 Fed. (2d) 987; the Rawley Warner (1937), 88 Fed.
(2d) 298.
88 The Edgar v. Luckenbach (1928), 277 U. S. 226.
87 Anelich v. Mardesich (The Arizona) (1936), 297 U. S. 701.
88 Beadle ▼. Spencer (1936), 298 U. S. 124.
31
defenses.89 Recovery o f damages under this act is a cumulative right and
is in addition to the right o f maintenance and cure and wages.40 The alter
native measure o f relief provided by this act is, therefore, not the
alternative between the maritime rights o f maintenance and cure and
wages, and the right o f recovery for compensatory damages fo r injuries
caused by negligence, but is between the latter and the maritime right
to rfccover indemnity for injury occasioned by the unseaworthiness o f
the vessel.
In cases o f death the Jones A ct supersedes the Death on the H igh
Seas A ct.41 This was the Supreme Court's ruling in Lindgren v. U. S. of
AmericaJ2 In other decisions, it was held that the act applies even when
the death occurred while the vessel lay in dock ;43 when the death results
from the failure to provide proper care to a seaman suffering from ill
ness;44 and that the action for recovery o f damages must be in favor
of a dependent.45 Recovery of damages is, however, subject to the stat
utes for limited liability.46
Lim itation o f Shipowners* Liability Statutes
Marine ventures have always been recognized as peculiarly hazardous.
Marine accidents, caused by “ A cts o f God,” and other acts beyond the
control or “ privity” of the owner, and resulting in loss o f life o f pas
senger and crew members, ship, and cargo, sometimes occur. In such
accidents, the liability if placed to the full extent upon the shipowner
may, unless covered by insurance, become ruinous.
During the Middle Ages, when maritime disasters were very frequent,
the various maritime powers, in order to encourage maritime ventures,
adopted provisions in their maritime codes, limiting the liability o f owners
o f vessels to their respective interests in the ships involved. Similar pro
visions are found in later maritime codes. The Ordonnance o f Louis X IV ,
for instance provided that “ the owner o f a ship shall be answerable for
the deeds o f the master, but shall be discharged upon abandoning his ship
and freight.” 47
Great Britain has adopted a similar provision in its maritime code.
In 1851 Congress enacted a statute limiting the liability o f shipowners
for “ any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any loss or damage
occasioned or incurred without the privity or knowledge o f the owner”
to the value o f his interest in the vessel and her freight.48 The courts,
feeling that shipowners incur a large risk when they expose their prop
erty to the hazards o f the sea and the management o f seafaring men,
not only have upheld this act,49 but have enunciated the principle that it
89 Sellan v. Great Lakes Transit Corp. (1937), 87 Fed. (2d) 708.
** Pacific SS Co. v. Peterson (1933), 287 U. S. 130.
* Ch. I ll , 41 Stat. 537; 46 USC sec. 761 (Mar. 21, 1920). This act was passed by
Congress less than 3 months before it passed the Jones Act. While it was not intended
essentially for seamen it applies to them in exactly the same manner it applies to other persons
exposed to marine hazards. It provides for recovery of damages in cases of death “by wrongful
act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the. shores
of any State.” It is clearly not applicable to deaths occurring on the Great Lakes or other
inland waters.
<®28 Fed. (2d) 725; affirmed (1930), 281 U. S. 39.
48 The Inca (1926), AM O 1577.
44 Rafael Cortes, Administrator, v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc. (1933), AMC 9.
48 Van Beeck, Administrator, v. Sabine Towing Co. (1937), 300 U. S. 342.
48 In re East River Towing Co., 266 U. S. 355 (1924), 45 Sup. Ct. 114.
47 Robert M. Hughes, op. cit. (p. 346).
48 Act of March 3, 1851, R. S. 4283, 46 U. S. C. 183.
48 Norwich & New York Transp. Co. v. Wright (1871), 13 Wall 104; The China (1868)
74 U. S. (7 Wall) 53.
32
must be construed liberally in their favor.5* M oreover, the courts have
held that the proceeds o f insurance policies carried by the shipowner,
covering his property, do not affect his right to limited liability, since
insurance money, when collected, does not represent an interest in the
ship itself but is the proceeds of a collateral contract.51
Under the old statute, therefore, when the death or injury resulted
from shipwreck, the shipowner could disclaim "privity” or knowledge o f
either unseaworthiness or incompetency o f any member o f the crew and
plead limited liability. T h e seamen tried, fo r years, to obtain legislation
m odifying this statute.52 Such legislation was passed in 1935, after the
M orro Castle and Mohawk disasters. This act amended section 183 o f
the old statute by (1 ) making the shipowner’s liability equal to (a ) the
value o f his interest in the vessel and her freight immediately after the
accident, or fb ) $60 per gross tons o f the vessel, whichever is greater;
and (2 ) making the "privity or knowledge” o f the master, or managing
operator at or prior to the commencement o f the voyage, the privity or
knowledge o f the owner.55
The amendment, therefore, makes it harder for the shipowner to prove
his right to limit his liability, and makes the amount o f limited liability
rather substantial. F or example, the average gross tonnage o f deep-sea
dry-cargo vessels in June 1938 was approximately 4,800 gross tons, and
their average crew was 35 seamen; at $60 per gross ton the liability per
seaman averaged over $8,200. The average gross tonnage o f such vessels
has increased as a result o f new ship construction to the point where,
even with the larger average crew, the liability per seaman has increased
to about $9,800.
Settlem ent o f Seamen9s Disability Cases Under Existing
M odified Em ployers9 Liability System
EFFECTING SETTLEMENT^
Immediately after a seaman is injured or becomes sick, a report is
made by his superior to the master o f the vessel who makes the proper
entry in the ship’s log, reports to the shipowner, and in some cases to
the U . S. Coast Guard as soon as possible.54 The seaman is brought back
to his original port o f sailing or other port agreed upon, and he con
tacts the claims official o f the owner or operator o f the vessel, or the
latter contacts the seaman. Arrangements are made fo r such wage and
maintenance allowance payments as are due him, and the negotiation o f
the claim settlement begins.
A s will be shown later, negotiations are generally conducted directly
with the seamen and are promptly concluded. In death cases, they are
conducted with the deceased seamen’s dependents.
Th e settlements include four items previously mentioned: (1 ) W ages,
when due, payable to the end of the round-trip voyages for which the6
1
0
60Providence and New York SS Co, v. Hill Mfg. Co. (1880), 109 U. S. 578.
61 The City of Norwich (1886), 118 U. S. 468.
68 For the early efforts of the seamen’s union see Proceedings of the International Seamen’s
Union, 19th Convention, August 1915, Resolution No. 22, and 25th Convention, January 1922,
Resolution No. 16. Both of these resolutions sought an amendment to R.S. 4283 increasing
the liability of shipowners for personal injuries or death up to $80 per gross ton.
w Public No. 391 (74th Cong.)
6* Before the war this report was made to the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation
of the Department of Commerce.
33
disabled seamen were engaged * only cash wages are included, no allow
ance being made fo r the value o f subsistence and lodging; ( 2 ) the main
tenance allowance for out-patient and convalescence periods, generally
computed at a daily rate; before the war this rate amounted to $2 or
$2.50 per day for unlicensed personnel not in supervisory ratings, and
to $4 or $4.50 for licensed officers, radio operators, and unlicensed per
sonnel in supervisory ratings;55 (3 ) other costs such as medicines, thera
peutic treatment, medical appliances, and hospitalization not furnished
by the U. S. Marine Hospitals, artificial limbs, transportation, and
burial in cases o f death; and (4 ) indemnity, if the liability o f the ship
owner can be established, covering compensation fo r pain and suffering,
diminution or loss o f future earning power, and sometimes loss o f wages
until other jobs become available.
Settlement practices differ among the various vessel operators. Some,
notably operators o f oil tankers, often pay the full wages fo r the entire
duration o f the disability to officers and other key vessel personnel who
haye been employed by them for a long period o f time. Some claims
adjusters have, over a period o f years o f experience, developed scales
o f benefits for various types o f disabilities. Others have developed the
practice o f applying the formulas o f certain State workmen’s compensa
tion laws. Some o f the oil companies operating tankers extend to their
vessel personnel the protection o f the employee-benefit plans available to
their other personnel. These may include death, sickness, and invalidity
benefits. In such cases the settlements will include tfie amounts o f these
benefits.56
When attorneys are employed by seamen, the shipowners will, in most
cases, immediately stop all payments to the seamen, whether they are for
wages, maintenance, or for any other item. They feel that when seamen
employ attorneys, any moneys already paid toward the settlements o f
claims often command little consideration by them in arriving at final
settlements. The final settlements^ when concluded, therefore include all
payments which may be claimed by the disabled seaman, such as wages,
maintenance allowances, indemnities, cost o f medical appliances, and so on.
SETTLEMENTS UNDER INSURANCE POLICIES
Although most shipowners carry insurance covering their liability,
only a small percentage o f the claims are negotiated by the insurance
carriers. Less than 8 percent o f the 5,354 disability cases reported for
1938 were settled by the insurance companies. Even cases involving fatal
or permanent disabilities were generally settled without their services,
only 15 percent o f such cases being settled by the Insurance carriers.
The reason is to be found in the type of insurance carried. Shipowners
usually carry so-called “ protection and indemnity” insurance policies
which cover not only their liability with respect to seamen’s injuries and
diseases, but also other liabilities (e.g., toward shippers) and risks (e.g.,
loss o f vessel). W ith respect to the liability for seamen’s injuries and
diseases, these policies contain deductible franchises which vary consid
erably from policy to policy. W hile, as a rule they range from $200 to
55 At the present time the maintenance is $2.75 per day for the lower unlicensed ratings
and $5 for licensed and other supervisory ratings.
66
Such benefit plans, although sometimes financed wholly by the companies, are usually
supported by joint employee and employer contributions.
34
$500, they sometimes exceed $7,500.57 Since most cases are settled for
amounts within these deductible franchises, the services o f insurance
adjusters are not used.
SETTLEMENTS THROUGH SEAMEN’ S ATTORNEYS
The disabled seamen’s rights are so well established that few o f the
seamen who are disabled (o r their dependents) find it necessary to
employ attorneys to negotiate the settlements o f their claims. O f the cases
reported for 1938, only 17 percent were settled through attorneys, and
only 2 percent were litigated in the courts. A higher proportion o f the
cases involving fatalities and permanent physical impairments, however,
were settled through attorneys. Even with respect to these serious dis
abilities, the seamen’s rights appeared so well established that in most
cases settlements were effected without the employment o f attorneys.
Thus, in fatal cases, only 22 percent o f the seamen’s dependents employed
attorneys, and less than 1 percent were carried into the courts. Only
45 percent o f the permanently disabled seamen employed attorneys, and
less than 10 percent o f such cases were carried into the courts.
W hen the insurance carriers handled the claims fo r the employers,
however, 35 percent o f the seamen employed attorneys, and 10 percent
o f the cases were carried into the courts.
Maritime employer’s liability cases tended to be concentrated among
a few admiralty lawyers. O f 373 cases handled by the 77 attorneys who
reported to the Interdepartmental Committee, 236 were handled by only
10 attorneys.
Many o f the cases settled by attorneys were for small amounts, as is
shown in the percentage distribution o f 373 reported disability cases
settled through seamen’s attorneys, by amount o f gross recovery. O ver
half o f them resulted in gross recoveries (before adjusting for attorney’s
fee) o f $300 or less. Only one-fifth o f the cases involved gross recov
eries in excess o f $1,000.
Gross amount o f recovery:
Percent of cases
18.5
$100 and under ....................................................................
$101 to $300 ..........................................................................
32.9
$301 to $500 ...............
17.5
$501 to $1,000 ......................................................................
10.7
$1,001 to $2,000 ....................................................................
6.6
$2,001 to $3,000 ....................................................................
4.7
$3,001 to $5,000 ....................................................................
3.4
$5,001 to $10,000 ..................................................................
3.8
$10,001 and o v e r ..................................................................
1.9
Total................................................................................
100.0
A ttorney Fees
O n the average, attorney fees, court and other litigat!on expenses ab
sorbed about 36 percent o f the gross settlements. W hile four o f the
reported cases were handled by attorneys at no cost to the seamen, in
the other cases those costs ranged from 9 to 80 percent o f the gross
settlements. In over 31 percent o f the cases, attorney fees and costs ab
sorbed 40 percent o f these settlements; in 45 percent o f the cases these
costs amounted to less, and in 23 percent, to more than 40 percent o f
gross settlements.
67
Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (p. 11). The prevailing: practice, introduced by the
War Shipping Administration, calls for a standard $250 deductible clause.
35
Generally, the larger the settlements, the lower the percentages o f the
fees and costs. About 70 percent o f the cases involving gross settlements
o f $100, or less, were settled at a total expense o f 40 percent or more o f
the gross settlements, whereas only 8 percent o f the cases involving
between $5,000 and $10,000 were settled at such cost. None o f the cases
involving over $10,000 was settled at a total expense o f more than a
third o f the gross settlements, and one-third o f the cases o f this magni
tude were settled at 20 percent, or less, of the gross settlements.
TIME REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENTS
It has been often maintained that one o f the objectionable features o f
the present modified employers’ liability system is the long period o f
time elapsing from the date o f the injury, or disease, to the date when
settlement is effected. The Interdepartmental Committee’s study showed
that over three-fourths o f the cases closed by March 1941 were settled
within 3 months after the date o f disability.58
As a rule the period o f time elapsing from the date o f the disability
to the date settlement was effected was considerably longer for cases
settled through seamen’s attorneys than fo r those settled directly with
the seamen. This reflects the fact that the claimants usually employed
attorneys when their claims o f the shipowners’ negligence, or o f the ves
sel’s unseaworthiness, were difficult to establish. In death cases, the
complicated problems o f proof o f dependency, or right to represent the
deceased seamen, often arise. In such cases, the employers may find it
desirable to seek rulings tfrom the courts before making payment to the
claimants.
Cases Occurring B efore 1938
W hen the Interdepartmental Committee’s data are examined, it is
found that it consisted o f 361 cases involving disabilities occurring prior
to 1938 and 5,34859 cases occurring in 1938. Some o f the older cases
occurred as far back as 1928. In half o f them the seamen, or their
dependents, employed attorneys to negotiate the settlements. About 9 per
cent o f them were carried into the courts.
Even these old cases did not, as a group, require extended periods o f
negotiation. Only about 8 percent o f them required from 2 to over 4
years o f negotiation, and only 2 percent were still pending at the close
o f the survey in March 1941. Almost 75 percent o f these cases occurred
in 1937 and were settled within 1 year from the date the disability
began, with almost 35 percent settled within 3 months.
W hen these older cases were handled by attorneys, the payment lag
immediately increased several fold, even when not taken into the courts.
Thus, less than 65 percent o f such cases were settled within 1 year,
although 85 percent o f the cases settled directly with the seamen were
closed within that p eriod ; and about 11 percent required 2 years or more
o f negotiations against less than 4 percent in the cases in which no attor
ney was employed.
W hen these cases were carried into court, the payment lag was, o f
course, much longer. Less than 40 percent were settled within 1 year;
almost 50 percent required at least 2 years o f negotiation. Almost 23
percent were still pending at the close o f the survey. In this connection,6
8
68 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (pp. 39-40).
“ Excludes 6 cases for which settlements were denied.
36
it is interesting to note that Frank J. Taylor, president o f the American
Merchant Marine Institute, testified at Congressional Hearings that it
takes 2 or 3 years before seamen’s cases are adjudicated in the courts.60
Cases Occurring in 1938
Obviously, these 5,348 cases were, as a group, settled much faster than
the older cases. Alm ost 75 percent o f them were settled within 3 months,
and less than 14 percent required 6 months or more o f negotiation.
Only 1 percent required 2 years or more.
A s in the older cases, those which were handled by attorneys involved
a longer payment lag, than those settled directly with the seamen.
Whereas 94 percent o f the cases settled directly were closed within
6 months from the date disability began, only 58 percent o f the cases
settled by attorneys, without court action, were closed within so short a
period. In both groups, however, 96 percent were settled within 2 years.
Cases carried into the courts constituted a very small proportion o f
these cases, only 2.4 percent, but they required relatively long periods
o f negotiation. Almost 50 percent required over 1 year’s litigation, and
over 22 percent, over 2 years o f litigation. Practically 80 percent o f the
cases still pending at the close of the survey were carried into the courts
Cases Involving Serious Disabilities
A s a rule, cases involving fatalities and permanent physical impair
ments required longer periods o f negotiation than those involving tem
porary disabilities. For instance, all but 7.1 percent o f the cases involving
temporary disabilities were settled within 1 year, whereas more than half
o f the fatal (54.6 percent) and o f the permanent total (52.2 percent)
cases were settled within that period. Moreover, while the proportion
o f cases involving temporary total disabilities still pending at the close
o f the survey was negligible, over 8 percent o f the fatal cases were pend
ing. These findings are not surprising since the settlement o f fatal and
permanent impairment cases involved complicated claims for damages
which, in many instances, not only required the employment o f attor
neys but also court actions.
s e a m e n ’s c l a im s fo r
d a m a g e s fo r p e r s o n a l in j u r ie s a n d t h e
courts
It has already been shown that in order to be awarded damages fo r
occupational injuries, diseases, or deaths, seamen or their representatives
must be able to present conclusive evidence with respect to the ship
owners’ negligence. The injured must first prove that he is a seaman,
and that the injury was not the result of an ordinary risk o f his calling.
I f the injury was sustained on a vessel owned by the United States
Government, he must sue in admiralty without benefit o f the jury trial,
and not at law with the benefit o f jury trial.
W hen negligence cannot be proven and the injury was not the result
o f his own willful misconduct, the seaman can still recover fo r expenses
o f his maintenance and cure, although such maintenance and cure will
not be provided for life. I f he has signed a release for a consideration,
60 Hearings on H. R. 6726: A bill relating to disability compensation for seamen, and
H. R. 6881: A bill implementing Draft Convention No. 55. Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries. U. S. House of Representatives (76th Cong., 1st sess.), July 11, 1939 (p. 11).
37
the seaman cannot sue again unless he can show that the release was
obtained under duress.
Litigation usually takes several years, generally over 2 years, and
sometimes as many as 11 or 12. Appeals to the lower appellate courts,
and if necessary to the United States Supreme Court, involve time and
expense.
A n examination o f 102 litigated seamen’s claims, reported in Am eri
can Maritime Cases during the years 1935 through 1938, reveals that
36 o f them resulted in no recovery at all, 15 in recovery o f the cost of
maintenance and cure and wages only, and 49 in recovery o f damages.
Cases tried before a jury yielded larger awards than those tried in
admiralty, and in certain district courts they were brought to a conclu
sion faster than in others. In nonfatal cases the amounts o f the damage
awards bore a direct relationship to (1 ) the earning power, (2 ) the
physical impairment, and (3 ) the life expectancy o f the injured. In the
fatal cases, consideration was given to (1 ) the earning power o f the
decedent; (2 ) number and relationship of the dependents; and (3 ) life
expectancy o f the dependents.
Most o f the cases which were decided against the seamen had been
appealed to higher courts, which, in many instances, had reversed the
lower courts’ decisions in favor o f the seamen. In other cases, they sus
tained the lower courts’ decisions against them.
Few o f the cases for which recovery for maintenance and cure only
was obtained, and damages denied, were appealed to the higher courts
and none to the United States Supreme Court. It is noteworthy that, in
only one case in which appeal was made by the defendant, the result
was a reversal o f the lower court’s award o f damages to the seamen.
This is explained by the fact that the seamen’s right to maintenance and
cure is seldom challenged by the shipowners and is usually met in a
more or less routine manner. Moreover, since the seamen are entitled to
free treatment at United States Marine Hospitals, the cost o f mainte
nance and cure is usually borne by the shipowners only when seamen
are undergoing out-patient treatment or when facilities o f U. S. Marine
Hospitals are not available. In practice, shipowners readily pay out
patient maintenance allowances and other costs to the seamen, including
cost o f hospitalization when it cannot be obtained from a U . S. Marine
Hospital. Appeals to higher courts will, therefore, usually be brought by
the seamen in efforts to obtain reversals o f the lower courts’ verdicts dis
allowing damages.
A s to the cases decided in favor o f the seamen, no pattern is readily
discernible Litigation lasted as long as 12 years. Appeals were the rule
rather than the exception. The damages awarded were often very large.
Out o f the 32 cases for which the amount o f the settlement was shown,
7 were for sums ranging from $15,000 to $29,675; but it must be remem
bered that the seamen paid the lawyers’ fees and costs out o f these
settlements. Even cases involving relatively small sums were dragged
through the courts by attorneys o f shipowners who took advantage o f
every possible legal technicality. In many cases verdicts for damages
were rendered by the lower courts but satisfaction o f these judgments
were delayed by petitions fo r limited liability, rehearings and appeals to
State supreme courts, to circuit courts of appeals, and to the United States
38
Supreme Court. Although the seamen were eventually successful, these
delays involved much time, expense, and uncertainty.
N et Recoveries Under the Existing M odified Em ployers9
Liability System
Although the net amounts actually received by seamen (after paying
attorney fees and other costs) exceeded $10,000 in 16 o f the 5,812 cases
reported as closed or pending in 1938, most o f the net recoveries the
seamen obtained by the close o f the survey were small. A s a group, they
averaged about $283. About 50 percent o f the disabled seamen received
net recoveries o f less than $100; 25 percent, between $100 and $ 20 0;
and less than 2 percent, $2,500 or more. Less than 1 percent o f the dis
abled seamen obtained net settlements amounting to $5,000 or more.
A s a rule, net recoveries in injury cases were considerably larger than
in disease cases, averaging $333 per injury as against $169 per disease
case. Whereas more than 1 percent o f the injury cases resulted in net
recoveries o f over $5,000 or more, none o f the disease cases netted as
much. Moreover, while close to 4 percent o f the injury cases resulted in
net recoveries ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, less than 2 percent o f the
disease cases resulted in such large net recoveries.
Practically all of the 5,487 reported compensable cases which occurred
in 1938, and fo r which complete data were available, resulted in recov
eries to the seamen involved or their dependents. Only 29 were still
pending at the close o f the survey, and only 104 were closed without
recoveries being effected. O f the latter, no formal claims for settlements
were made in 76 cases, and in 28 the claims had been denied by the
shipowners or their representatives. In the remaining cases, the total
recoveries, after deducting attorney fees and other litigation costs,
amounted to $1,434,460. These included a small number o f cases (5 4 )
which did not result in indemnity settlements, as such, but did result in
significant recoveries for wages “ to the end o f the voyage” and for
“ other costs,” totaling nearly $8,400.
NET RECOVERIES AND EXTENT OF DISABILITY
Contrary to what might be expected, cases resulting in deaths did not
yield, on the average, the largest net recoveries. Table 8 shows that the
average o f the net recoveries in fatal cases was less than half that in
permanent total disability cases, and 7 percent smaller than that in per
manent partial disability cases. It will also be observed that fo r each
category o f extent o f disability, the average net recovery in injury cases
was substantially larger than in disease cases.
.
T able 8 —Average N et R ecovery, by Extent o f D isability
[Reported cases occurring in 1938]
All cases
Extent of
disability
Injury cases
Average
net
Number
Number
recovery
All extents ...........
5,354
$268
3,631
F atal......................
Permanent total . .
Permanent partial.
Temporary total . .
112
18
188
5,036
1,761
3,646
1,898
162
57
8
176
3,390
Disease cases
Average
net
Number
recovery
*
$319
1,723
3,161
5,312
1,968
174
55
10
12
1,646
Average
net
recovery
Percent average
disease
recovery is of
average injury
recovery
$159
50
310
2,213
879
136
10
41
45
78
39
The relatively low averages for the fatal cases may be explained by
the fact that under the modified employers’ liability system, as under
workmen’s compensation systems, recoveries can be effected only by the
victims themselves or by the persons dependent upon them. In fatal cases,
therefore, except fo r the wages, maintenance allowances due for the
period before death ensued, and the reimbursement o f certain expenses
such as those for burial, only dependents could have recovered indemni
ties for damages under the law. Only a small portion o f the seamen,
however, are known to have close next o f kin dependent upon them.
Moreover, the seamen having died, unseaworthiness o f the vessels or
negligence o f the shipowners was difficult to prove. This was especially
true with respect to disease cases, which it will be noted, comprised
almost 50 percent of the deaths. Further, seamen’s dependents were
usually not in a position to press their claims very energetically.
NET RECOVERIES AND ATTORNEY FEES AND COST OF LITIGATION
W hen seamen or their dependents employed attorneys to handle their
claims, they averaged noticeably larger net recoveries (after deducting
attorney fees and costs)— especially when the claims were carried into
the courts— than when they handled the claims themselves. This was
generally true regardless o f the extent or cause o f the disability.
It will be recalled that attorneys were employed in 17 percent o f the
5,354 cases here discussed. The average net recovery in these cases was
$617 as compared with only $197 in cases settled directly with the
seamen. W hen the attorneys reached a settlement, without taking the
cases into the courts, the net recoveries averaged only $532 as compared
with $1,234 when court action was required. Table 9 shows the average
net recoveries in cases o f various extents of disability settled directly
with seamen, or their dependents, and in cases settled through attorneys.
T able 9.—
,
A v e r a g e N e t R e c o v e r y b y M e t h o d o f S e ttle m e n t an d E x te n t o f D is a b ility
[.Reported cases occurring in 1938]
Cases settled by seamen—
All cases
Extent of
disability
Through atorney-r—
Directly
Out of court
|
In court
Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount Number Amount
All extents ............
5,354
$268
4,451
$197
796
$532
107
$1,234
F atal......................
Permanent total . .
Permanent partial .
Temporary total . . .
112
18
188
5,036
1,761
3,646
1,898
162
J87
6
109
4,249
1,414
1,829
1,220
144
24
10
62
700
3,040
4,312
2,365
229
1
2
17
87
1,252
5,266
3,955
495
1 Settled with the seamen’s dependents.
NET RECOVERIES AlND SETTLEMENT ITEMS
The settlements in most o f the 5,354 cases studied involved payments
for (1 ) wages to end o f the round-trip voyages for which the disabled
seamen had been engaged; ( 2 ) maintenance allowances while out-patients
or convalescents; and (3 ) indemnities for damages suffered as a result
o f the shipowners’ or the masters’ negligence. In a small proportion
o f the cases the settlements included payments fo r “ other costs” also.
The larger share o f the $1,434,460 recovered by the seamen (after paying
all legal expenses) represented indemnities for damages. Maintenance
40
allowances, although received in over three-fourt.hs o f the cases, ag
gregated less than a fourth o f the total net amounts recovered. In the
aggregate, wages and “ other costs” were not very significant. This is
shown in table 10.
T able 10.—Percentage D istribution o f 5,354 Cases R eported Settled in 1938, and
P ercent o f N et Amounts R ecovered, by Settlem ent Item
Injury cases
All cases
Settlement items
Percent
of
cases1
Wages to end of voyage . . .
Maintenance allowance . . . .
Net indemnity ......................
“ Other costs” ......................
63
78
69
16
All items ..................
100
Disease cases
Percent
of
cases1
Percent
of
recovery
Percent
of
cases1
Percent
of
recovery
10
23
60
7
67
80
70
15
8
21
65
6
62
74
66
16
18
30
45
7
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
of
recovery
1 These percentages do not add because a case may involve two or more settlement items.
Each o f the above items, except “ other costs,” were paid in a slightly
larger proportion o f injury cases than o f disease cases.
Seamen actually received wages and maintenance allowances in nearly
all cases in which they were due. When, as is done in table 11, the
percent o f the cases in which seamen were disabled during periods when
wages and maintenance allowances were due are compared with the
percent o f the cases in which such payments were received, it is found
that the differences between them were rather small.
T able 11.—Percent o f Cases in Which Wages and M aintenance Allowances W ere
D ue and in W hich They W ere Paid, by Extent o f D isability
{Reported cases occurring in 1938]
Percent of cases in which—
Extent of disability
Wages to the end of the
voyage were—
Maintenance
allowances were—
Due
Paid
Due
Paid
All extents.........................................
C5
63
82
78
Fatal .............. .....................................
Permanent total ..................................
Permanent partial ..............................
Temporary total ................................
26
67
74
65
18
67
70
65
12
50
81
84
7
50
78
78
SETTLEMENT ITEMS AND EXTENT OF DISABILITT
Each o f the four settlement items had different weights in the net
amounts recovered by the seamen, depending on the extent o f the dis
ability incurred and on whether the disability was caused by an injury
or by a disease.
Wages to the end of the voyage were paid in approximately the same
proportion o f the cases (two-thirds) falling in each extent group, whether
caused by injuries or diseases, except in cases involving fatalities. In
the latter wages were paid in 9 percent o f the injuries and 35 percent o f
the diseases. W age payments averaged from $38 per case in fatal disease
cases to $116 per case in diseases resulting in permanent total disabilities.
For all extents combined, wage payments averaged $43, the lowest amount
o f any settlement item. For temporary total disability cases the average
41
wage payment was $41, as compared with $110 for permanent total dis
abilities.
Maintenance allowances averaged next to the smallest settlement item,
yet they were found in a higher proportion o f the cases (over threefourths) than any other settlement item. They were considerably larger
than the wage payments, averaging $78 per case. W hile they were paid
in 78 and 79 percent o f the permanent partial and o f the temporary total
cases, respectively, they were paid in only SO percent o f the permanent
total and in only 8 percent o f the fatal cases. This is not surprising,
since the maintenance allowance is not payable while the seaman is hos
pitalized ; it is payable only while the seaman is an out-patient or con
valescent, and then only until the wound is healed or while treatment
may effect a cure.
W hen paid, the amounts bore a direct relationship to the period o f
out-patient treatment and convalescence. Thus, the average maintenance
allowance ranged from $72 in temporary total cases to $606 in per
manent total disability cases.
Because o f the high degree o f certainty that the maintenance allow
ances will be paid, and the fact that the rate o f such allowance is more
or less established throughout the industry, the right to this maintenance
allowance is regarded by the maritime unions as a form o f workmen’s
compensation.61
N et indemnities (after deducting the attorney fees and other legal
expenses) represented the largest settlement item included in the amounts
recovered by disabled seamen. This was true regardless o f the extent
o f the disability (even in temporary total disabilities), or whether the
disability was the result o f an injury or an illness. On the whole, when
paid, this item averaged $242, and ranged from an average o f $93 per
disease resulting in temporary total disability to $5,032 per injury re
sulting in permanent total disability. For each extent o f disability cate
gory, the average was noticeably smaller in disease than in injury cases.
Obviously, the amounts o f the net indemnities recovered were in
direct relation to the extents o f the disabilities incurred, except that in
fatal cases they were noticeably smaller than in permanent total dis
ability cases. Net indemnities in fatal cases averaged only $3,750 per case.
N ext to the maintenance allowance, the indemnity was the settlement
item most frequently paid. It was paid in 69 percent o f the cases. In
temporary disability cases, indemnities were paid in as many as 69 per
cent o f the injury and 67 percent o f the disease cases, but they were
not paid in all fatal and permanent disability cases. It will be recalled
that the cases here studied did include a small number for which no
formal claims were presented, although they did result in payments
o f wages and “ other costs.” These cases, therefore, did not result in
indemnity payments. W hen ad adjustment is made fo r them, it is found
that not all o f the claims for fatal and for permanent disabilities resulted
in indemnities, and that the percent o f successful claims was larger in
injury than in disease cases. It is noteworthy, however, that a high pro
portion o f the temporary total cases resulted in the payment o f indem
81 See for instance, testimonies in Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Commerce, U. S. Senate (66th Cong., 3d sess.); Hearings on H.R. 6881, An Act to Implement
the Provisions of the Shipowner's Liability, Convention, 1936, July 1940 (pp. 217-19, 147).
697369°—-46— 3
42
nities. The percent o f successful claims for damages, by extent o f dis
ability, are shown for both injury and disease cases:
Percent of ceases
Injury Disease
Fatal ........................................................................................ 88
Permanent t o t a l .................................................................. 100
Permanent partial .............................................................. 90
Temporary total .................................................................. 69
45
90
82
67
The explanation for the failure o f all claims for damages, for deaths
and permanent physical impairments, to result in the payment of in
demnities may be found simply in the fact that (1 ) in death cases, no
indemnity could be paid except to the deceased's dependents; and (2 ) in
all cases, damages were payable only when unseaworthiness o f the
vessel, or negligence on the part o f the shipowner (o r his representative),
could be proven, and that in disease cases this was often very difficult
and may have depended upon the energy with which the claims were
pressed.
Whether the disabilities were permanent or temporary or the results
o f injuries or diseases, it is observed that a high proportion o f disabled
seamen were successful in recovering damages. This fact, coupled with
the relative difficulty o f proving the vessel's unseaworthiness, or the em
ployer's negligence in disease cases, supports the contention made
earlier in this study that diseases occurring in the service o f the vessel
were treated by the shipowners in very much the same manner as injuries.
“ Other costs” were paid in fewer instances than any other settlement
item, except in cases resulting in deaths. They were paid in over 80
percent of the fatalities reported and averaged about $200 per case, the
amount usually paid by claims adjusters as reimbursements for burial
expenses. W hen paid, this item averaged from $76 for temporary total
disabilities to $588 for permanent total disabilities.
Chapter 3.— W orkmen’s Compensation Legislation and
the Merchant Seamen
Foreign Legislation Extending W orkm en’s Compensation
to
Merchant Seamen1
The obligation o f the master o f a merchant vessel to assist a^ seaman
who falls sick or is injured during the voyage is universal. It is a ne
cessity imposed by the peculiar conditions surrounding employment at
sea. It was recognized by the ancient maritime customs which governed
the relations between the master and the members o f his crew before
the establishment o f national laws. Its origin has been discussed in
chapter 2.
A s the merchant marines o f the various nations acquired increasing
importance as commercial ventures and as auxiliary weapons o f military
domination, the nations began to draw up maritime regulations which
would best serve their own* interests. “ Customary maritime law” was
gradually replaced by national legislation such as the “ Ordonnance Sur
la Marine” o f 1681, prepared under the direction o f Colbert and promul
gated by Louis X I V .1
2 This French example was followed by other
nations; and during the 18th and 19th centuries, a series o f national
maritime codes, embracing among other customs o f the sea the seamen’s
traditional rights to wages and maintenance and cure, were promulgated.
These codes evolved not merely from the desire o f the various nations
to protect their merchant marines and make seamanship more attractive
but also as a result o f the development o f social legislation for industrial
workers, especially workmen’ s compensation laws.
THE SEAMEN’ S TRADITIONAL RIGHTS TO WAGES, AND
MAINTENANCE AND CURE
Unlike American seamen, the foreign seamen’s traditional rights are
not defined by a series o f court decisions but are clearly spelled out in
the various nations’ “ merchant marine” or “ seamen’s” laws. The extent
o f these rights are usually controlled by the provisions o f the workmen’s
compensation laws covering merchant seamen. The maritime rights are
intended to protect the seamen merely during the period when their
employment at sea makes it difficult for them to come within the pro
tection o f the agency administering the workmen’s compensation laws.
They make the shipowners liable to the seamen fo r full wages for a
stipulated period o f time and for medical care and maintenance while
receiving such care.
1 The laws of the following countries were examined: Argentina, Australia, Belgium.,
Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece,
India, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden,
and Yugoslavia.
2 Pardessus, J. M., opus. cit. Vol. IV (p. 366).
43
44
The Seaman9s Right to Wages
W hile this right varies with the different national laws, wages are
always payable to disabled seamen at least as long as they remain on
board ship.8 In a few countries the laws extend their payment for stipu
lated periods after the seamen are disembarked.
The Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Fin
land, and the Baltic nations o f Latvia and Estonia have almost identical
seamen’s acts. In these countries, the laws provide fo r the payment o f
full wages for the duration o f the employment and fo r the follow ing
additional periods: 3 months for masters, 2 months for other officers,
and 1 month for unlicensed seamen. The Danish law, however, differen
tiates between seamen employed in European navigation and those em
ployed in non-European navigation. Officers in the latter group are
entitled to wages for only 1 month after discharge, unlicensed seamen
fo r only 1 week.
The provisions found in other European laws vary greatly. F o r in
stance, the British and Yugoslavian laws limit the wage payment to
the period the seamen remain on board ship; the French, Greek, Italian,
and Portuguese laws extend it fo r 4 months after the seamen are dis
charged, or put ashore, whichever occurs first; the Belgian law, like
that o f the United States, provides for full wages fo r the full round
trip for which the seamen are engaged, whether or not they remain on
board sh ip; and the Netherlands law for the period the seamen remain
on board ship, and 80 percent o f the wages for as long as 26 weeks
thereafter.
The non-European laws also vary greatly from one another. Thus, the
Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand laws provide for wage payments
only while the seamen are on board ship; the Chinese and Japanese laws
while the seamen are under medical care, and fo r an additional month
in the case o f Japan. The South American laws generally provide fo r
the payment o f full wages until the seamen are repatriated.
The Seaman9s Right to Maintenance and Cure
Unlike the American practice which calls fo r maintenance and cure
until the seamen are cured or medical care can no longer effect a cure,
the foreign laws usually limit the shipowners’ liability in this respect to
3 months. A few laws (e.g., Great Britain, Yugoslavia, and Canada)
limit the shipowners’ liability to the date the seamen are repatriated.
In Canada, seamen, who are employed on vessels for which the ship
owners have paid the necessary duty toward maintenance o f marine hos
pitals, may obtain maintenance and cure at such hospitals for as long as
1 year. The Argentine, French, Brazilian, and Chinese laws follow the
American practice, providing maintenance and cure until the seamen
recover or until medical care can no longer effect a cure. The German
law limits the liability o f the shipowners to the time when the sickness
or accident institution can take charge o f the seamen.
Death Benefits Under Maritime Law
A ll the foreign laws examined require that the seaman be given a
decent burial (ashore, if possible), and that his wages be paid to his heirs
s it will be recalled that according to the American law the seaman is entitled to full
wages for the duration of the entire round-trip voyage, whether he remains on board ship or
not. See p. 26.
45
fo r the period to and including the date o f his death, if it occurred dur
ing his period o f employment.
There are, however, a few variations from this general rule. The law
o f Finland, for instance, makes the shipowner liable for funeral expenses
only if the death occurred abroad. The Latvian law provides that if the
death is the result o f an occupational injury or illness, the provisions o f
the workmen’s compensation law be applied. The Norwegian, Danish,
and Chinese laws provide fo r dependents’ benefits. The first two laws
provide merely for 1 month’s wages. The third law provides for 1 year’s
wages if the death was occupationally incurred and 3 months’ wages if
it was not so incurred. The Belgian law provides that wages be paid to
the end o f the leg o f the voyage during which the death occurred.
w o rk m en ’s
c o m p e n s a t io n
law s
and
the
merchant
seam en
Nearly all foreign countries have enacted workmen’ s compensation
laws which cover merchant seamen who have become ill or injured in the
course o f their employment or in the service o f their vessels. W hile a
few countries (Australia, Belgium, France and N orw ay) have enacted
special seamen’s workmen’s compensation laws, others (like Germany)
include workmen’s compensation coverage for seamen within their gen
eral social insurance codes.
Most foreign merchant seamen, however, are covered by general work
men’s compensation laws which have been enacted for industrial work
ers.4 These laws simply include merchant seamen either by definition o f
the terms “ employer” and “ employee,” or by not listing them or the ship
ping industry among the groups excluded from their coverages. A few o f
these laws, such as the British, Danish, and Italian, have special sections
dealing with merchant seamen.
In nearly all workmen’s compensation laws, benefits become applicable
after maritime benefits have been exhausted. In Sweden, however, bene
fits under the workmen’s compensation law are offset against those
received under maritime law.
Regardless o f their differences, most o f these laws follow the usual
pattern o f workmen’s compensation laws:
( 1 ) They cover only work injuries and diseases;
(2 ) They make the employer responsible for the benefits specified;
(3 ) The benefits provided consist o f (a) medical treatment including
hospitalization, physiotherapy, artificial limbs, etc.; and ( b ) cash benefits
fo r temporary total, permanent partial, permanent total, and fatal injuries
and diseases; and
(4 ) The benefit payments are secured either by the purchase o f work
men’s compensation insurance, or the posting o f adequate security with
the proper authorities.
Coverage o f Injuries and Diseases
The coverage o f work injuries presents no special problem since the
fact that an injury is incurred occupationally can usually be established
readily. The reverse is frequently true o f industrial diseases. In the
drafting of workmen’s compensation laws, many countries have fol- *
* Canada, which has no national workmen’s compensation law, is one of the few exceptions.
The various Provinces have their own laws.
46
lowed the practice o f listing, either in the law itself or in administrative
regulations, those diseases which are to be considered “ occupational.”
In the laws specially enacted for seamen, these diseases are often
described as “ inherent to seafaring,” “ climatic,” and “ epidemic.” 5
Benefits Provided
MEDICAL BENEFITS
A s already indicated, medical benefits under the workmen's compensa
tion laws are not available to merchant seamen until similar benefits
under the maritime laws have been exhausted. They are provided by
nearly all workmen's compensation laws. The law o f Great Britain is a
notable exception in that it does not provide medical benefits,6 except in
disabilities resulting in death and involving individuals who do not leave
any dependents.
Medical benefits under the workmen’s compensation laws are intended
to restore the individual to working capacity. Thus, medical aid is given
until the seaman again becomes fit fo r duty or is declared permanently
incapacitated. In permanent disability cases, medical care is given until
the wound heals and, if possible, until the seaman is “ rehabilitated.”
Rehabilitation often includes retraining so as to enable the individual to
re-enter gainful employment.
CASH BENEFITS
Cash benefits, like the medical benefits, became payable after similar
benefits under maritime law have become exhausted; or, as provided in
the Swedish law, are offset against them. W ithin certain specified mini
mum and maximum amounts, the benefit rates vary with the extent o f
the disability incurred.
Temporary total disability.— W hile the benefit rates specified in the
laws examined range from 50 percent (e.g., Great Britain and Chile) to
70 percent (Netherlands) o f the wages recently earned by the disabled, the
benefit rate most often specified is 66% percent o f basic wages. A few
countries (France, Italy, and Australia), who have established systems
o f family allowances, provide additional benefits fo r dependents. Benefits
are usually payable for the full period o f the disability, or for a specified
period (often 1 year) after which the disability is deemed permanent.
Permanent partial disability.— W hile the benefit formula found in
workmen's compensation laws o f the United States— i.e., schedules o f
benefits fo r specific physical impairments— is found in some o f the fo r
eign general workmen's compensation laws, it is not usually found in
the special seamen's workmen's compensation laws. O f the countries
having such laws, only Australia has established a benefit schedule appli
cable to permanent partial physical impairments; these benefits range
from £75 fo r the loss o f a toe at the first joint to £675 for the complete
loss o f an arm or its use. Most foreign workmen's compensation laws
simply provide for benefits equivalent to specified percentages o f the
loss o f earning power resulting from the disability. Although most o f
these laws provide that benefits be paid fo r the duration o f the dis
6
To the extent that the disease coverage is thus limited, the existing American modified
employers* liability system affords broader coverage than the foreign laws. As has been pointed
out, the American practice appears to be that of treating all diseases occurring or aggravated
during service on board ship in the same manner as injuries occurring on or aggravated during
service on board ship.
,
. , .
6 When required, these are furnished under the sickness insurance system.
47
ability, in some payments are limited to a period equal to that fo r which
permanent total disability benefits are payable, when these are limited;
in a few laws, payments are limited to shorter periods.
Permanent total disability.— M ost foreign laws provide for benefits in
proportion to the wages last earned by the seaman, ranging from 50 per
cent o f wages (Great B ritain)7 to 75 percent (France, Lithuania), with
6 6 % percent being most commonly paid. In a few cases (e.g., France)
the benefit rates are higher than for temporary total disabilities. A few
laws (e.g., Australia, Brazil and Greece) provide for lump-sum pay
ments o f £750, 3 years’ wages, or 6 years’ wages, respectively. Depen
dents’ benefits are provided by those countries having family allowance
systems. In Finland, fo r example, the law provides that if the seaman
has dependents the benefit will be 66% percent o f his wages, but if he
has no dependents, it will be only 50 percent. M ost laws provide for a
slight increase in benefits if the disabled seaman requires the constant
attendance o f another person.
Death benefits.— These consist o f (a ) funeral benefit and ( b ) sur
vivors’ pensions.
Funeral benefits.— Funeral benefits, provided in most laws, are ex
pressed either in flat amounts, regardless o f the rating o f the seaman,
or in terms o f a specified number o f days’ pay. The British law differs
from the others in that it provides this benefit only if the seaman has no
dependents, and limita.it to £15. In the laws o f the countries which
relate the benefit to wages, the benefit ranges from 20 days’ pay (E stonia)
to 60 days’ pay (F in lan d ).
Survivors' benefits.— These benefits are usually provided only to the
widow and orphans o f the deceased. In the absence o f such close next
o f kin, some laws provide fo r benefits to other dependent next o f kin.
A ll the laws which provide for survivors’ pensions specify that the
widows’ pensions are to cease upon remarriage. Although orphans’ pen
sions are payable only until the children reach age 16, or 18, depending on
the country, most laws extend these benefits fo r another 2 or 3 years,
if necessary, so as not to interrupt the children’s education or training.
W idow s’ pensions range from 20 percent (N orw ay ) to 50 percent
(Italy) of the deceased’s wages. Usually, however, they are fixed at
33% percent. In about half o f the laws examined, the orphans’ pensions
amount to 15 percent, and in the other half to 20 percent, o f the de
ceased’s wages.8 The aggregate payable to the widow and the children
o f the deceased is limited to amounts ranging from 50 to 6 6 % percent
o f the deceased’s wages.
The British law fixes the survivors’ benefit to sums equal to the wages
o f the deceased for 3 years; but, while the respective minimum and maxi
mum benefits are £200 and £300, it specifies that if the seaman leaves
dependent children the maximum shall be raised to £700. The Greek and
Danish laws provide for survivors’ benefits amounting to the seaman’s
wages for 5 and 3.6 years, respectively, the Australian and Brazilian laws
for 4 and 2 years, respectively,
7 It is of interest that in establishing the recent increases in maximum weekly benefits,
these maxima were raised an additional 5 shillings for the first 13 weeks of disability and 15
shillings for the period thereafter, if the disabled has a wife; and that an additional 5 shillings
weekly per child was allowed during each.period, up to a maximum aggregate benefit of seveneighths of the wages if he has a wife and children.
8 Larger orphans* pensions are payable when the seaman leaves no widow.
48
The benefit formula found in the Belgian law is most interesting.
Under this law, a w idow ’s pension amounts to the life annuity obtainable
fo r her at the time o f her husband’s death by the expenditure o f 30 per
cent o f the amount he would have earned had he lived, his full life
expectancy. For example, let us assume that at the time o f his death
(1 ) The seaman was 50 years o f age; ( 2 ) he earned 10,000 francs per
year; and (3 ) his widow was 45 years o f age. The life expectancy o f a
male at age 50 is approximately 20 years. The amount the seaman would
have earned during that period, had he lived, would therefore have been
200,000 francs. The w idow’s annuity would then be the amount obtain
able by 30 percent o f 200,000 francs, or 60,000 francs. Let us assume,
further, that a life annuity o f 1 franc for a female aged 45 were ob
tainable for approximately 16 francs, the widow’ s pension would therefore
amount to 60,000 divided by 16, or 3,750 francs annually.
Financing
It has already been pointed out that the employer is liable fo r the
benefits under workmen’s compensation laws. W ith but few exceptions,
the employer is required to bear the entire cost o f providing this com
pensation. The French law is one of the few exceptions. It provides
that benefits be financed by taxing the shipowners 3% percent o f the
wages paid by them, the officers 1 percent o f the wages they receive, and
other seamen % o f 1 percent o f their wages. These taxes cover sickness
insurance as well. A few laws provide that the State contribute toward
the administrative cost o f the system. This is especially true o f the
countries requiring that the risk be insured. Thus, Sweden not only pays
the administrative cost o f the system, but also makes certain grants to the
insurance associations to enable them to meet their management expenses.
Similarly, the Danish law provides that the State not only pay a por
tion o f the insurance premiums o f small firms, but also bear some o f the
administrative expenses o f the State mutual insurance funds.
In most countries the employers are required to insure their risks with
approved insurance carriers. In many, the employers have the option o f
insuring or depositing securities with the proper authorities. In all coun
tries, strict supervision is exercised by a designated government author
ity. Generally the method o f arriving at the premium to be charged for
the insurance is left to the insurance institutions, subject, however, to the
approval o f the proper governmental authority. The Norwegian law has
an interesting provision in this respect. The premium is to be calcu
lated, partly as a percentage o f the earnings o f the seamen and partly
at a fixed rate per gross ton o f the vessel operated, in such a way that
half the total cost o f carrying the risk is covered by the amount paid
on the basis o f the seamen’s earnings, and the other half by the amount
paid on the basis o f tonnage. The final premium is fixed by the Crown
and approved by the Parliament.
RIGHT ^OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER LIABILITY LAWS
A s a general rule, the foreign laws covering merchant seamen provide
that action for damages cannot be instituted except when the injury or
illness was the result o f the negligence o f the shipowner (o r the m aster),
or when the injury or illness was the result o f a violation o f the safety
49
statutes.9 In such cases, the claimant can receive only the excess o f the
amount awarded for damages over that awarded under the workmen’s
compensation law.
The British law, for instance, provides that when the injury is caused
by the “ personal negligence or willful act o f the employer, or some
other person fo r whose act or default the employer is responsible” the
worker may elect to claim his compensation under the act, or take action
“ independently o f this act.” I f the action fails, the claimant may seek
compensation under the compensation act, and the cost o f the action (in
whole or in part) may be deducted from the compensation.101
The Norwegian law places the liability fo r damages on the “ ship
owner, master, or other person in command” only if it is proven by
“ criminal conviction” that he has caused the injury “ purposely or through
gross neglect.” 11
American Attem pts to Extend W orkm en’s Compensation System
to Merchant Seamen
Although the history o f workmen’s compensation legislation in the
United States shows that labor generally advocated and employers usu
ally opposed the extension o f the workmen’s compensation system, pro
posed legislation to extend it to merchant seamen has fo r many years
been opposed by the merchant seamen and supported by the shipowners.
This anomalous situation has not always existed. The history o f the
attempts to enact a workmen’s compensation law for seamen shows that,
at least until the passage o f the Jones Act, efforts to obtain such legisla
tion were exerted by the seamen.
EARLY EFFORTS
In the United States, the early efforts to extend workmen’s compensa
tion to merchant seamen date back to the enactment o f the first State
workmen's compensation law in 1910. A t the end o f 1913, 22 States had
such laws. By that time seamen, like other workers, had become very
discouraged with the operation o f the existing employers’ liability sys
tem. Although the new system was still in its experimental stages, its
advantages over the old one appealed forcefully to the seamen. It is not
surprising, therefore, to find the editor o f the Coast Seamen’s Journal,
the publication of the International Seamen’s U nion, commenting upon
the union’s failure to obtain specific inclusion o f seamen in the Cali
fornia’s workmen’s compensation law, announcing that the seamen will
keep up their fight for “ equal rights with all other classes o f labor” and
for “ the recognition o f the seamen’s right to com pensation/’ 12 and assert
ing that if seamen could not be covered b y State legislation, compulsory
compensation would be demanded from Congress.13
The movement to obtain a Federal workmen’s compensation law fo r
seamen was officially set in motion at the annual convention held by
»O f the laws examined, those having such provisions are Australia, Belgium, Finland,
France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden.
10 “ An act to consolidate the law relating to compensation to workmen for injuries
suffered in the course of their employment.’* 15 and 16, George V , ch. 84, December 22, 1925,
as amended (sec. 29).
11 Act respecting accident insurance for seamen, dated June 24, 1931, amended July 10,
1936 (sec. 28).
ii Coast Seamen’s Journal, Vol. X X V I, No. 34, May 7, 1913 (p. 7).
18 Idem, No. 36, May 21, 1913 (p. 6).
50
the International Seamen’s Union in May 1913, when the following reso
lution was passed:
Whereas the workmen’s compensation laws enacted by the various States and
by the United States do not include seamen, the latter being left to seek whatever
relief they may be entitled to under the maritime law, and
Whereas under these circumstances it becomes a practical impossibility for a
seaman to secure damages or compensation for injuries received in the course o f
his calling; and
Whereas the rights o f seamen in this regard have been recognized by all other
maritime countries by inclusion o f that craft in the benefits o f workmen’s compen
sation laws; Therefore be it
R esolved by the International Seamen's Union o f Am erica:, in convention as
sem bled, that the workmen’s compensation laws, State and Federal, should be ex
tended to embrace all classes o f seamen, and the legislative committee is hereby
instructed to take the necessary steps to accomplish this object.14
A t the next convention, in 1914, an identical resolution was passed.
The union, however, appeared to be uncertain as to how to proceed
to improve the* position o f the seaman disabled in the service o f his
vessel, and followed two different approaches— (1 ) to m odify the exist
ing employers’ liability system; (2 ) to obtain a Federal workmen’s com
pensation law for seamen. The Seamen’s A ct became law in 1915.
It contained a clause (sec. 20) which modified the fellow-servant rule
by defining the term “ fellow servant” so as not to include seamen “ in
command.” A t the convention held that same year, two resolutions were
introduced— one calling for a “ Federal insurance act to provide relief for
sick, disabled and aged seamen,” and the other for an amendment to the
Statutes for Limited Liability (R .S . 4283) ; the resolution calling fo r
insurance was rejected in favor o f the other. The Marine Firemen, Oilers,
and Watertenders’ Union, however, urged the introduction o f a bill
calling for workmen’s compensation in addition to maintenance and
cure.15
Although the Coast Seamen’s Journal continued to press fo r a Fed
eral workmen’s compensation law, interest in m odifying the existing
employers’ liability system was again displayed at the next convention
when the union’s N ew Y ork attorney urged the consideration o f a law
making the employer liable for injuries resulting in death.16 The empha
sis, however, was on workmen’s compensation.
Shortly after the United States entered the First W orld W ar, Congress
passed a law providing for the insurance o f merchant seamen against
the loss o f life or personal injury resulting from the risks o f war. In
order to take care o f the so-called marine risks, Congress passed the
Johnson amendment in 1917 which extended to seamen and other mari
time workers the rights and remedies given shore workers by the State
workmen’s compensation laws. The latter was looked upon with a great
deal o f uncertainty by the seamen. The United States Supreme Court
had just ruled that the New Y ork State workmen’s compensation law
could not be applied to maritime workers since they came under mari
time law.17 Moreover, some o f the State laws specifically excluded mer
chant seamen. The Coast Seamen’s Journal again came out with the
11 Proceedings of the International Seamen’s Union of America, 17th Annual Convention,
Seattle, Wash., May 12-20, 1913 (p. 47).
15 Idem, 19th Convention, August 2*i0, 1915 (pp. 62, 70).
16 Except when covered by State death statutes, no recovery for death can be had at
common law.
17 Southern Pacific v. Johnson, 244 U. S. 205, 37 Sup. Ct. 525 (1917).
51
exhortation that “ Congress should follow the lead o f other maritime
nations and enact just and comprehensive Federal law fo r all American
seamen.’’1^ Th e union’s San Francisco attorney, on the other hand,
advised the seamen as follow s:
1. In cases o f unseaworthiness, keep away from the compensation
boards, and sue in admiralty.
2. In cases o f negligence o f seamen in authority, also keep away from
compensation boards, and sue in admiralty.
3. In other cases, since seamen have no claim in admiralty, go to the
compensation boards.1
19
8
FEDERAL LEGISLATION REQUESTED BY THE SEAMEN
The first bill which was introduced in Congress was the result o f a
recommendation made at the International Seamen’s U nion convention/
held in December 1917, by its president, Andrew Furuseth. This recom
mendation called fo r the drafting o f legislation by the union’s legislative
committee, which would have the support o f other seamen’s unions,
notably the Masters, Mates and Pilots Organization and the Marine Engi
neers’ Beneficial Association. The committee prepared tw o bills, one o f
which received the endorsement o f these two organizations, and was
introduced in April 1918 by Senator Hiram W . Johnson o f California.20
It provided fo r :
(1 ) Medical benefits.
(2 ) Cash benefits based on the seaman’s wages, and the extent o f the
disability incurred.
(3 ) The payment o f the above benefits to the exclusion o f all other
legal remedies, except in cases involving the shipowner’s negligence
when it provided for the election to claim the above benefits or to main
tain an action fo r damages at law or in admiralty; and
(4 ) The payment o f the above benefits in addition to the existing tra
ditional maritime rights.
The war, however, interfered with the progress o f this legislation.
In the meantime,, section 20 o f the Seamen’s A ct had been invalidated
by the United States Supreme Court. The officials o f the seamen’s unions,
while anxious to obtain a workmen’s compensation law fo r their mem
bers, were coming to the conclusion that under no circumstances should
the seamen relinquish any o f their existing rights.21 In March 1920, the
Johnson amendment was declared unconstitutional.22 The State work
men’s compensation acts were, therefore, definitely inapplicable to mari
time workers. A few weeks later, Senator Jones (State o f W ashington)
introduced a bill amending section 20 o f the Seamen’s A ct. The bill was
passed and became law on June 5 o f the same year. A s was shown in
the preceding chapter this law, which became popularly known as the
Jones A ct, not only accomplished what the Seamen’s A ct had failed to
do, but it also removed or restricted most o f the other common-law
employers’ defenses.
18 Coast Seamen's Journal, Vol. X X X I, No. 6, October 17, 1917 (p. 7).
19Idem, Vol. X X X I, No. 8, October 31, 1917 (p: 6).
20 S.4342 (65th Cong., 2d sess.). The other bill was almost identical except fo r a p ro
vision which would have increased the benefits by 50 percent in cases of willful misconduct
on the part of the shipowner, and reduced the benefits by 50 percent in cases of willful mis
conduct on the part of the seamen.
a International Seamen’s Union Proceedings, 22d Convention, January 1919 (p. 69).
28 Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (1920), 253 U. S. 149.
52
Until the Jones A ct was upheld by the Supreme Court, the seamen
were doubtful o f its value. The editor o f the Coast Seamen’s Journal
continued to advocate a Federal seamen’s workmen’s compensation law.28
T w o weeks before the passage o f this law, he expressed his doubt that
the act would add anything to the seamen’s existing rights to bring suit
fo r damages for injuries suffered in the course o f his employment, voiced
lus belief that the railroad workers were none too satisfied with the
operation o f the Federal Employers’ Liability A ct, and urged the pas
sage o f Senator Johnson’s bill which was then pending before Congress.
A t the International Seamen’s Union convention held in January 1921,
one o f the union’s attorneys told the membership that the law “ was but
o f little value” and that “ a compensation law should be enacted.” 24 Its
legislative committee, while recognizing that the enactment o f that law
“ resulted in an improvement” over the previously existing conditions,
also urged the enactment o f a Federal seamen’s workmen’s compensa
tion law. It recommended the approval of a bill (S . 4 70 8), prepared by
the American Association for Labor Legislation, patterned after the
N ew Y ork workmen’s compensation law, and introduced by Senator
Johnson, on the condition that it be amended to ( 1 ) include fishermen;
( 2 ) safeguard the seamen’s traditional maritime rights; and (3 ) give the
seamen the option to bring an action fo r damages o r claim the w ork
men’s compensation benefit.25
The last two conditions were very important. From then on, the sea
men’s spokesmen insisted upon them.26 This was vividly brought out at
the International Seamen’s Union’s convention o f 1923, when an ani
mated discussion o f a seamen’s workmen’s compensation law versus the
liability laws as modified by the Jones A ct took place. The union’s legisla
tive committee had recommended the approval o f a bill (S . 746) drafted
by the American Association for Labor Legislation, although it would
have deprived the seamen o f the right to sue. It expressed its conviction
that the right to sue was “ a theoretical rather than a substantial con
sideration.” A report on this question, prepared by a Seattle admiralty
lawyer and presented to one o f the union’s officials, was submitted to the
convention. This report consisted not only o f an opinion on the bill
itself, but also on the committee’s recommendation. The attorney sharply
criticized the recommendation, and asserted that, with the employer’s
defenses removed, as under the Jones A ct, the right to sue was most
effective. Instead o f a seamen’s workmen’s compensation act, he urged
an amendment to the Jones A ct which would (1 ) permit an action before
any court (State or F ed era l); (2 ) provide fo r ju ry trial in admiralty;
and (3 ) deny the shipowner’s right to limited liability in certain cases
involving collision, or shipwreck.27
A t the next convention, in January 1924, Andrew Furuseth still
insisted that a seamen’s workmen’s compensation act must retain all
existing remedies, including the right to sue. H e announced, however,
that it would not be wise to press fo r new legislation until the United
States Supreme Court had rendered its decision on a case involving the
constitutionality o f the Jones A ct which it had under consideration.
28 Coast Seamen’s Journal, Vol.
84 International Seamen’s Union
a®Idem (p. 157).
2* Idem, 25th Convention, 1922
27 Idem, 26th Convention, 1923
X X X II, No. 38, May 26, 1920 (p. 6).
Proceedings, 24th Convention, January 1921 (pp. 140-141).
(pp. 12-19); 26th Convention, 1923 (pp. 76-78).
(pp, 71-79, 152-167).
53
H e did, however, urge the amendment to the Jones A ct described above.28
This act was upheld during the year29 and at the convention held the
following January, no mention o f workmen’s compensation was made.
Instead the amendment to the Jones A ct, recommended at the previous
convention, was pressed again.
Thus, the position o f the union became clear. It would accept a sea
men’s workmen’s compensation law as an additional remedy, not as a
substitute fo r the seamen’s existing rights. It insisted especially upon
the right to sue under the Jones Act, if the seaman chose to do so rather
than claim his workmen’s compensation benefit. The shipowners, by that
time, had also made their position clear. Seeing the manner in which the
Jones A ct was being applied by the courts, they began to push the work
men’s compensation principle as the exclusive remedy. The lines became
clearly drawn. The unions concluded that if the shipowners sought such
legislation, it could not be good for the seamen. This was the attitude
displayed at the 1926 convention in Furuseth’s report on workmen’s
compensation. The report emphasized that such legislation should not
m odify any o f the seamen’s existing remedies and should include the
choice between compensation and the right to sue. It stressed the advan
tages o f an employers’ liability system with restricted employers’ de
fenses as a device to force employers to make provisions for the safety
o f their employees, and added that workmen’s compensation insurance
as applied to merchant seamen could not be as effective as the above
device coupled with the traditional rights o f maintenance and cure.
TH E SEAMEN AND T H E LONGSHOREMEN’ S AND HARBOR WORKERS’
COMPENSATION ACT
That the seamen would not relinquish any o f their existing rights in
favor o f workmen’s compensation became clear again when Congressional
hearings were held prior to the enactment o f the present Longshoremen’s
and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation Act. The law which had given long
shoremen the protection o f the State workmen’s compensation laws, and
which had been passed in 1922, was invalidated in 1924. The longshore
men, therefore, again became active in their efforts to obtain a Federal
law. H eretofore, they had merged their interests with those o f the mer
chant seamen, but the Jones A ct had been enacted exclusively for the lat
ter. The longshoremen were still plagued by the employers’ defenses.
The bills which had been drawn by the American Association for Labor
Legislation had been intended to cover both seamen and longshoremen,.
However, since the form er were insistent in their desire to retain their
exclusive remedies, they were eventually excluded from the bills finally
introduced in 1926 by the simple device o f defining the term “ employee”
as excluding the “ master or member o f a crew o f any vessel.” The atti
tude o f the shipowners was revealing. In opposing this bill, the counsel
for the American Steamship Owners Association, while asserting that
“ the association is heartily in favor o f a workmen’s compensation act to
cover the industry as a whole,” added that it was against the bill for
several reasons— the first being that it covered only a part o f the indus
try. The association, he said, believed that seamen should also be cov
ered, and felt that no particular class o f people should be picked from *•
fi8 Idem, 27th Convention, 1924 (pp. 11*19).
*•Johnson v. Panama R. R. Co., see supra (p. 30).
54
the industry to be left out.808
1The bill was passed in 192731 and applied
to longshoremen only.
Thereafter no legislation which would have extended the workmen's
compensation principle to merchant seamen was introduced at the request
o f seamen or their representatives. Several bills were, however, intro
duced at the request o f the shipowners. The seamen's unions on the
other hand, sought the enactment o f amendments extending the scope o f
the Jones A ct.82*8
5
4
LATEST CONGRESSIONAL ATTEMPTS TO EXTEND WORKMEN’ S
COMPENSATION TO SEAMEN
N o legislation which would have extended the workmen's compensa
tion system to merchant seamen has been introduced in Congress in the
last few years. The last bill introduced was H .R . 6881— “ A n A ct to
Implement the Provisions o f the Shipowners' Liability (S ick and Injured
Seamen) Convention, 1936." In its original form , and as passed by the
House o f Representatives on July 31, 1939,33 it confined itself to the
implementing o f this convention. W hen the Senate received the bill fo r
action, the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine o f its Committee on
Commerce, which was considering the bill, made certain changes in it
before holding its hearings. One change was very important. It provided
for the extension o f the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor
W orkers' Compensation A ct to merchant seamen.34 The development o f
this bill is interesting.
International Labor Organization D raft Convention N o. 55
A t its 21st Session held at Geneva, October 6-24, 1936, the Interna
tional Labor Conference adopted several D raft Conventions and recom
mendations affecting merchant seamen. One o f them was Draft Con
vention No. 55 “ concerning the liability o f the shipowner in the case o f
sickness, injury, or death o f seamen."
In August o f the follow ing year, the Secretary o f State placed this
draft, together with the other documents, before the President o f the
United States with a view to its transmission to the Senate to receive,
subject to certain considerations advanced by the Secretaries o f Com
merce and Labor and the Chairman o f the United States Maritime Com
mission, the advice and consent o f that body to its ratification. The
Secretary o f Labor recommended its ratification, the Secretary o f Com
merce did not oppose it, and the Chairman o f the United States Maritime
Commission saw no special advantage to it, asserting that American law
provided substantially equal or greater rights than those provided in the
D raft Convention.
The most important provisions o f D raft Convention N o. 5535 are as
fo llo w s:
(1 )
The shipowner's liability extends to sickness and injury occur
ring between the date o f reporting for duty and the termination o f the
80 Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, U. S. Senate (69th Cong. 1st sess.): Hearings
on S. 3170, March-April 1926 (p. 46).
81 Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers* Compensation Act (ch.509; 44 Stat. 1424).
88 S. 3376 of 1927; S. 181, 1977, and 3616 of 1932; S. 1080 of 1935: S. 3216 and H. R.
8208 of 1940.
88 This bill was slightly different from the original draft, c. f. Title I of Committee Print
No. 4 of H.R. 6881 in Hearings before a Subcommittee on Commerce, U. S. Senate, on H.R.
6881 (76th Cong., 3d sess.), July 1940 (pp. 4-5); and reprint of H.R. 6881 in Hearings before
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, on H.R. 6726
and H.R. 6881 (76th Cong., 1st sess.), July 1939 (p. 142).
84 Senate Hearings on H.R. 6881, op. cit. (p. 1-7).
85 International Labor Office: International Seamen's Code (pp. 25-28).
55
engagement, as well as death resulting from such sickness or injury
(art. 2 ).36
(2 ) The liability covers the cost of medical treatment, medicines,
appliances, board and lodging, until the seaman has been cured or the
incapacity is declared o f a permanent nature (arts. 3 and 4 ).
(3 ) National laws or regulations may limit the liability fo r the above
expenses to a period not less than 16 weeks from the date o f the injury
or the commencement o f the sickness (art. 4 ) .
(4 ) W here incapacity for work results, the shipowner is liable for full
wages as long as the seaman remains on board sh ip; if the seaman has
dependents, the shipowner is liable for wages in whole or in part, as
prescribed by the national laws or regulations, from the time he is landed
until the condition is cured or declared permanent. The national laws or
regulations may limit this obligation to not less than 16 weeks (art. 5 ).
(5 ) Countries where there are arrangements for compulsory sickness
insurance, accident or workmen’s compensation insurance, may provide
in their laws or regulations that the shipowner shall be relieved o f such
liability from the time the seaman becomes entitled to benefits under such
arrangements (arts. 4 and 5 ).
(6 ) The Convention is binding only upon the members o f the Inter
national Labor organization whose ratifications have been registered with
the Secretary-General o f the League o f Nations. It comes into force
12 months after the ratification o f two members have been registered
(art. 15).
In June 1938, the Senate consented to the ratification o f the Conven
tion. The ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General o f the
League o f Nations on October 29, 1938. Belgium having already ratified
it, the Convention became effective for the United States on October 29,
1939. It therefore became necessary to implement it.*
87
PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT ILO DRAFT CONVENTION NO .
55
O n June 12, 1939, the Secretary o f State recommended to the Presi
dent that Congress be requested to enact legislation to implement the
Draft Convention. H e transmitted, with this recommendation, a draft
o f a proposed bill prepared and approved by an interdepartmental com
mittee composed o f representatives of agencies interested in the Draft
Convention.38 Accordingly, on June 15, 1939, the President submitted
these documents to Congress, and urged that legislation be enacted at the
then current session o f Congress, as the Convention was to become effec
tive for the United States on October 29, 1939.
The Interdepartm ental Commdttee*s B ill
The bill simply implemented the draft convention by—
(1 )
Providing that where the sickness or injury results in incapacity
for work the shipowner is liable for (a) full wages as long as the sea
man is on board ship, and (&) if he has dependents, full wages from
3« Except certain conditions such as those resulting from willful acts, etc.
87 Also ratified by Mexico on September 15, 1939. S$e International Labor Conference:
Report on the Application of Conventions, Report V I, 1945 (p. 68).
38 These agencies were The Departments of Commerce, Justice, Labor, State and Treasury,
the Maritime! Labor Board, the Social Security Board, the United States Employees* Compen
sation Commission, and the United States Maritime Commission. This committee is not to be
confused with the Interdepartmental Committee ta Study Workmen’s Compensation for Seamen
created by Senate Res. 299, and referred to throughout this report as Interdepartmental
Committee.
56
the time he is landed until he has been cured or declared permanently
incapacitated;
(2 ) Requiring that the Secretary o f Labor, with the cooperation o f
the Secretary o f State, the Secretary o f Commerce, the United States
Public Health Service, and the United States Maritime Commission, sub
mit by January 3, 1943, to the Congress, a report on “ the manner and
extent to which the shipowners and the United States have rendered
services specified in the Convention or this act,” ; and
(3 ) Providing that nothing in the Convention, or the act, shall affect
any existing rights o f the seamen which insure or provide more favorable
conditions, rights, or remedies than those provided by the Convention or
the act.39
The bill, therefore, not only affirmed the seamen’s traditional mari
time rights, and the right to sue under the Jones A ct, but with respect
to seamen who had dependents, would have provided full wages, in lieu
o f the maintenance allowances during out-patient treatment and convales
cence, from the time they are landed, whether hospitalized o r not, until
they are cured or declared permanently incapacitated. The report to
Congress required by the bill was decided upon by the members o f the
interdepartmental committee after they had considered the desirability
o f recommending the extension o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor
W orkers’ Compensation Act, or some similar act, to merchant seamen.
The committee concluded that such action should be withheld until a
careful study o f all the questions involved could be completed and con
sequently provided for such a study in the bill.
The H ouse o f Representatives and H. R. 6726 and H . R. 6881
In compliance with the President’s wishes, the H ouse o f Representa
tives considered the proposed legislation. It also gave consideration to
the immediate extension o f workmen’s compensation to merchant sea
men. Accordingly, when it held public hearings in July 1939, two bills
were discussed: H .R . 6726— “ a bill relating to disability compensation
for seamen,” and H .R . 6881— “ a bill implementing D raft Convention
N o. 55.” 40
H .R . 6726 contained no reference to the International Labor Organi
zation’s Draft Convention. It simply would have made, by inference, the
provisions o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation
A ct applicable to merchant seamen by adding a Title X I I to the Mer
chant Marine A ct o f 1936, an amendment which would have provided
that:
(1 ) In the administration o f the laws with respect to compensation
for death or disability of persons employed in maritime employment upon
navigable waters o f the United States, the provisions o f such laws be
applicable in cases o f injury or death o f officers and members o f the
crews o f merchant vessels;
(2 ) The merchant seaman’s rights to maintenance and cure remain
unimpaired, provided that the value o f any maintenance provided by the
employer shall be deducted from the seaman’s average weekly wage in
89 The other provisions of the Draft Convention were considered self-executing:.
40
Shipowners* Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936— Disability Compen
sation, Hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of
Representatives (76th Cong., 1st sess.) on H.R. 6726— A bill relating to disability compen
sation for seamen, and H. R. 6881— A bill implementing Draft Convention No. 55, July 11, 1939.
57
computing the workmen’s compensation payable in respect to any period
during which such maintenance is provided; and
(3 )
The provisions o f the Limited Liability A ct o f 1851 be inappli
cable.
H .R . 6881 was the identical bill prepared by the interdepartmental
committee and transmitted by the President to Congress a few months
earlier. During the hearings, three facts became clear: ( 1) The ship
owners objected to H .R . 6881 but urged the application o f the Long
shoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct to merchant sea
m en; ( 2 ) although the seamen’s unions preferred no legislation at all at
that time, they were willing to accept H .R . 6881; and (3 ) the various
Government agencies, which had been represented on the committee,
approved H .R . 6881, but were not in agreement with respect to the
desirability o f extending workmen’s compensation to merchant seamen
at that time.
The shipowners objected to H .R . 6881 on the alleged grounds that
(a ) not only did it impose a larger liability on them than the Draft Con
vention required, but ( b ) it placed them at a distinct disadvantage in
competition with foreign shipowners, because the latter were able to limit
their liability by taking advantage o f the workmen’s compensation laws
o f their countries, while this bill would not make it possible fo r the
American shipowners to do likewise. They therefore urged the applica
tion o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct to
merchant seamen.
The seamen’s unions strenuously opposed the extension o f workmen’s
compensation to merchant seamen, especially the Longshoremen’s and
Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, on the alleged grounds that seamen
had more liberal benefits under the existing modified employers’ liability
system than they could possibly have under any compensation act.
The Government agencies which had made up the interdepartmental
committee all favored workmen’s compensation in principle. However,
with the exception o f the United States Maritime Commission and the
United States Employees’ Compensation Commission, they were unwill
ing to recommend its extension to merchant seamen before having had
an opportunity to study the entire question carefully. The United States
Maritime Commission, while not recommending the enactment o f H .R .
6726, and while not opposing the enactment o f H .R . 6881, was o f the
opinion that inasmuch as seamen with no dependents were, in the ab
sence o f a workmen’s compensation law, remitted to the usual civil reme
dies, the desirability o f the enactment o f such a law should be considered.
It felt that the framers o f the Convention anticipated the application o f
insurance and compensation standards to the liability fo r payment o f
wages. The United States Employees’ Compensation Commission simply
reiterated its position, expressed in its annual report to Congress the
previous year, recommending the enactment o f a workmen’s compensa
tion law for seamen patterned after the Longshoremen’s and Harbor
W orkers’ Compensation A ct.
The H ouse o f Representatives, after considering all the arguments
raised pro and con, during the hearings before the Committee on M er
chant Marine and Fisheries, passed H .R . 6881 almost as it had been
drafted by the interdepartmental committee. It eliminated from it, how
ever, section 9 which required that a report be submitted to Congress on
697369 ° — 46— 5
58
the manner and extent to which shipowners have “ rendered services
specified in the Convention or this act.” It also limited the shipowners’
liability, after the seaman had been landed, and in the event he had
dependents, to $10 monthly for a period not to exceed 16 weeks from
the date o f the injury or the commencement o f the sickness.
The Senate and H. R. 6881
The Senate did not act on this bill during that session o f Congress,
but at the next session it held hearings before the Subcommittee on
Merchant Marine o f the Committee on Commerce, on a revised bill
(H .R . 6881) which differed materially from the bill passed by the House.
The new bill was also entitled “ A n act to implement the provisions o f
the shipowners’ liability (sick and injured seamen), Convention, 1936.”
It was divided into Titles I and II. Title I consisted o f most o f the pro
visions o f the bill passed by the House, but substituted the provisions
o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct (as
amended) for the shipowners’ liability to seamen who had dependents.
Title II (a) amended the Longshoremen^ and H arbor W orkers’ Com
pensation A c t so as to extend its coverage to merchant seamen; ( h) in
corporated the seamen’s traditional maritime rights as offsets against the
compensation benefits; and ( c ) provided fo r sickness benefits to seamen
after they leave the ship, if they have dependents, but limited them to a
period not to exceed 16 weeks from the commencement o f the sickness.
This bill was not approved by the Subcommittee, apparently because
o f the mixed reaction to it. The various Government agencies whose
views had been sought by the Subcommittee (namely, those which were
on the interdepartmental committee) were in disagreement as to the
desirability o f passing it in its revised form, especially with respect to
extending the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct
to merchant seamen at that time. Their views are summarized b elow :
(1 ) The Department o f Labor felt that the bill, in certain respects,
failed to comply with the treaty obligations o f the United States.
M oreover, the extension o f the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’
Compensation A ct to seamen did not take full advantage o f the advances
made in such legislation by progressive States.
( 2 ) The Department o f State, likewise, felt that the bill, in certain
respects, would not satisfy this country’s international obligations under
the Convention. It also inform ed the Subcommittee that the provisions o f
the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, with re f
erence to “ sickness,” were not as broad as the provisions in the Con
vention or in the existing American statutory law.
(3 ) The Maritime Labor Board 41 felt that the bill would, in certain
respects, restrict the benefits under the Convention. It stated, further,
that in its “ judgment it would be a mistake to blanket seamen under the
Longshoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct in connection
with the adoption o f legislation for the implementing o f the Convention
in question,” and that if it was desired to pass a workmen’s compensa
tion law fo r seamen at that time this should be done by drafting separate
legislation.
41
The Chairman of this Board had been one of the two United States Government dele
gates to the International Labor Conference which had adopted the International Labor
Organization Convention No. 55.
59
(4 ) The Department o f Commerce 42 stated that the bill probably
failed to implement the provisions o f the Convention in tw o respects,
one o f them being that extension o f the Longshoremen’s and H arbor
W orkers’ Confpensation A ct would fail to provide adequately fo r sick
seamen.
(5 ) The Department o f Justice simply informed the Committee that
it preferred not to make any suggestion with reference to the desirability
o f enacting a compensation act fo r seamen.
( 6 ) The United States Employees’ Compensation Commission re
iterated its position as favoring the extension o f the Longshoremen’s
and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation* A ct to seamen.
(7 ) The Federal Security Agency, while not attempting to advise the
Committee relative to the desirability o f extending the Longshoremen’s
and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct to seamen, pointed out that “ it
has been suggested that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Com
pensation A ct is not entirely adaptable to special conditions o f the mari
time industry.”
( 8 ) The United States Maritime Commission recognized that the bill
failed to implement the Convention in certain respects, and while it was
in favor o f extending workmen’s compensation to seamen, it was o f the
opinion that unless the bill under consideration (revised in certain re
spects) could be passed with little delay, the bill as passed by the House
should be enacted since it met the treaty obligations o f the United States.
The extension o f workmen’s compensation to cover seamen could be
decided by Congress at a later date after a consideration o f all factors
involved.
Other witnesses before this Subcommittee seemed to divide themselves
into two grou ps: (a) Those who approved the extension o f workmen’s
compensation for seamen (namely, shipowners) and persons interested in
the extension o f social legislation in general; and ( b ) those who felt
that the existing modified employers’ liability system gave the seamen
better protection than the extension o f the workmen’s compensation sys
tem could give them (namely, merchant seamen and their representa
tives). The first group definitely favored the enactment o f the bill, the
second definitely opposed it.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST EXTENSION OF WORKMEN’ S COMPENSATION
TO MERCHANT SEAMEN
W hen the arguments fo r and against the extension o f workmen’s
compensation to merchant seamen presented at the hearings on H .R . 6726
and H .R . 6881 by the proponents and opponents o f the measure are
carefully examined ,43 it is found that proponents o f the measure ad
vanced all the arguments which decades earlier labor had advanced in
favor o f the workmen’s compensation principle and which the employers
then resisted. Moreover, they advanced additional arguments supporting
the provisions o f the proposed measure, and referred to statistical anal
yses to substantiate their claims. Thus, they asserted that the maximum
award o f $7,500 provided in the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ *
42
The Director of Ships* Personnel of the Department’s Bureau of Marine Inspection and
Navigation was the other United States Government delegate to the International Labor
Conference which adopted the International Labor Organization Convention No. 55.
**See Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (pp. 23-29).
60
Compensation A ct was liberal by comparison with similar provisions in
most o f the other American compensation acts. Furthermore, they re
ferred to the statistical studies o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United
States Maritime Commission, and their actuarial consultant, as substan
tiating their belief that the seamen would fare better, in dollars and cents,
under the proposed measure than they actually did under the existing
modified employers’ liability system.
The arguments advanced by the representatives o f the seamen in oppo
sition to the bill, on the other hand, reflected the attitude o f individuals
who have a “ good thing” and do not want to give it up for something
which is presented to them as “ better” but o f which they are suspicious.
They were suspicious o f the proposed legislation because the proponents
o f the measure had never before voluntarily offered to “ do anything fo r
the seamen.” Their arguments rebutted all o f those advanced b y the
proponents, restated the seamen’s position previously expressed in the
consideration o f similar legislation, namely, that they did not want to
relinquish their traditional rights and that they wanted to retain the
right to sue under the Jones Act. In addition, they asserted that (1 ) the
benefits under the proposed measure were too lo w ; ( 2 ) the probable
awards under the proposed law would be smaller than the settlements
obtainable under the existing modified employers’ liability systems; (3 )
the Bureau o f Labor Statistics study was more than 12 years old, and
conditions in the industry had changed since the completion o f that
study; and (4 ) only a year previously, Government agencies interested
in the problems o f seamen had agreed in conference that a study o f the
problem should be made before Congress could pass on the advisability
o f extending the workmen’s compensation system to merchant seamen.44
Thus, it became clear that while, by and large, the principle o f w ork
men’s compensation was admittedly more equitable to all concerned than
the principle o f employers’ liability, the extension o f the system to mer
chant seamen involved certain specific considerations which are far d if
ferent from those facing its extension to shore workers. First, the
seaman is protected by his ancient maritime rights; and second, he is
protected from the full force o f the employers’ defenses under the em
ployers’ liability system. I f a workmen’s compensation system is to be
extended to merchant seamen, it appears to be agreed by all concerned
that it must be done in such a way that will result in an improved method
o f providing adequate and fair relief to seamen disabled while in the
service o f their vessels and to the dependents o f those who died in such
service. Moreover, this relief must be at least as liberal as that provided
by the existing system. Since the existing system departs from the ordi
nary employers’ liability system by making special provisions to meet the
peculiar characteristics o f the seaman’s maritime employment, the work
men’s compensation system must also depart from the usual workmen’s
compensation formula and make special provisions to meet these peculiar
characteristics. The hearings before the Subcommittee on Merchant
Marine o f the Senate Committee on Commerce emphasized this problem
and pointed out that its solution was retarded by the lack o f ade
quate statistical information. Consequently, the Chairman o f this Sub
committee, Senator Overton, introduced, and the Senate adopted, Senate
44 Sce» statement by Bjorne Hailing, Hearings on H.R. 6881, U. S. Senate (pp. 282-284).
61
Resolution 299 providing for an Interdepartmental Committee 45 “ to make
a thorough study o f workmen’s compensation with a view to determining
whether the same, by act o f Congress, should be made applicable to sea
m en; to supply the Senate with statistical information and other data
that may be helpful in considering such legislation . . . and to report to
the Senate • . . the findings and specific recommendations” o f the
Committee.
REPORT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY WORKMEN’ S
COMPENSATION FOR SEAMEN
This Interdepartmental Committee set about to study the existing
modified employees’ liability system governing the settlement o f seamen’s
(o r their dependents’ ) claims for injuries, diseases, or deaths occurring
in the service o f their vessels, compared the amounts o f the actual recov
eries in almost 6,000 claims closed or pending in 1938 with those which
would have been awarded under a hypothetical workmen’s compensation
law for seamen. It sought the answer to three questions:
(1 ) Is workmen’s compensation in principle a more desirable and satisfactory
method o f providing recovery for injured workers than a system o f liability,
based upon negligence?
(2 ) Can a workmen’s compensation system be devised that will retain essentially
desirable features o f this form o f remedial legislation and yet preserve to injured
seamen their long-standing rights to full wages to the end o f the voyage and
maintenance and cure?
(3 ) W ould a modified workmen’s compensation plan as indicated in question 2
be desirable and advantageous from the standpoint o f the seamen, the industry,
and the public?46
Its answers to the first two questions were in the affirmative. W ith
respect to the third question, the Committee observed that although the
history o f workmen’s compensation legislation shows that labor has gen
erally advocated its adoption and management opposed it, maritime labor
opposed it and shipowners supported it. It noted that the seamen’s ob
jections were due to the fact that admiralty laws provide them certain
advantages not enjoyed by industrial workers generally. From its statisti
cal studies, the Committee recognized that temporarily disabled seamen
would probably not fare as well under the proposed workmen’s com
pensation system as they did under the existing system. It felt, however,
that this inadequacy would be more than offset by the more adequate
probable recoveries in cases o f m ajor injuries or deaths. It concluded
that a workmen’s compensation act that will provide benefits to seamen
which exceed or even equal the benefits and advantages o f the existing
modified employers’ liability system must incorporate certain features
“ not typical o f existing compensation statutes.” 47
The Committee was unable to compare the probable cost to the em
ployers o f the proposed system with that o f the existing system .48 The
industry’s spokesmen, however, had emphasized before Congressional
Committees their belief that a workmen’s compensation system would
assist in improving employment relations within the industry. M ore
45 The Interdepartmental Committee consisted of representatives of the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Labor, the United States Maritime Commission, the United
States Employees’ Compensation Commission, and the Maritime Labor Board. The report
originally was to have been submitted to the Senate by February 15, 1941, but an extension
of time to July 1, 1941, was granted by Senate Resolution 72.
46 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (pp. 3-4).
47 Idem (p. 5).
48 Idem (p. 7).
62
over, their testimonies before these Committees indicated that should the
proposed system involve a greater cost to them than the existing system,
they were willing to bear it.484
9
So far as the public is concerned, the Committee observed that “ the
principle o f public responsibility for the care o f the indigent” was gain
ing more general acceptance. Any system, which would assure a minimum
o f instances in which disabled seamen and the dependents o f deceased
seamen would be forced to turn to public relief or charity, would there
fore be advantageous to the public. W hile this objective might be attained
through some modifications o f the present system, the Committee believed
workmen’s compensation offered greater assurance o f its fulfillment.
The Committee summarized its conclusions as fo llo w s:
(1 ) The principle o f workmen’s compensation legislation provides the most
satisfactory method thus far designed for the adjustment o f claims arising out
o f industrial accidents, and such legislation is in the interest o f the public, em
ployers, and particularly the workers themselves;
(2 ) It is possible to devise a plan o f workmen’s compensation for seamen which
would retain the essentially desirable features o f the system without requiring
seamen to relinquish their long-standing rights to full wages to the end o f the
voyage and maintenance and cure while undergoing treatment after the end o f the
voyage; and
(3 ) The minimum standards of workmen’s compensation for seamen should
be a plan which (a ) takes effect without a waiting period upon termination o f the
wages at the end o f the voyage; (b ) pays benefits during period o f out-patient
treatment and convalescence not less than the maintenance to which the injured
seamen is entitled during a period o f temporary disability; ( c ) provides benefits
computed on full-time wage base, together with the value o f subsistence and
lodging and renumeration for overtime and bonuses; and (d ) provides benefits
at least equal to those provided under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’
Compensation A ct but without limitation o f total benefits payable fo r death or
disability.” 4®
48 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit.
49 Idem (p. 2).
Chapter 4.— Actual Settlements Versus W orkm en’s
Compensation Benefits
Previous Attem pts to Compare the Two System s
Since the enactment o f the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W orkers'
Compensation A ct, there have been four attempts to compare the mone
tary value to disabled seamen o f the existing modified employers' liability
system with that o f workmen's compensation systems. These are—
(1 ) Settlements fo r Accidents to American Seamen (U . S. Bureau o f
Labor Statistics, Bulletin N o. 466, October 1 9 2 8 ); ( 2 ) Actual Settle
ments to Seamen Versus Probable Awards Under a W orkm en's Com
pensation Law (U . S. Maritime Commission, 1939; an unpublished re
port) ; (3 ) Calculations made by an actuarial consultant fo r the American
Merchant Marine Institute in 1940, presented at hearings on H .R . 6881,
W orkmen's Compensation for Seamen and Shipowners' Liability, before
a Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, July 1940; and (4 ) System o f
W orkmen’s Compensation for Seamen (Interdepartmental com mittee to
Study W orkm en's Compensation for Seamen, Senate Doc. N o. 113, 77th
Cong., 1st sess., September 17, 1941).
The first three studies ended with the conclusions that disabled mer
chant seamen would have fared better under a workmen's compensation
system than they actually did under the existing modified employers'
liability system.
The first study consisted o f a comparison o f the actual settlements in
1,195 claims, consummated by the more important shipping companies
and marine underwriters, in the New Y ork City area in 1926, and the
probable awards which would have been obtained by the seamen involved,
or their dependents, if the claims had been adjudicated under the Long
shoremen's and Harbor W orkers' Compensation A ct which had been
passed a year earlier. This study had certain weaknesses, owing largely
to the nature o f the data and an over-liberal interpretation o f the work
men's compensation provisions.
The second study, while based on a fairly representative sample o f
cases, suffered from the fact that the data used had not been collected for
the purpose o f comparing the tw o systems. M uch essential information
was lacking, making it necessary to estimate certain factors. Moreover,
the provisions o f the workmen's compensation act, which were applied in
estimating the probable awards, were interpreted too liberally.
The third study involved the application o f the benefit experience
under the workmen's compensation law o f N ew Y ork State to some
8*,000 cases settled by six shipowners in 1935, 1936, and 1937. Obviously,
since merchant seamen were not covered by the New Y ork State law,
the application o f the average benefit per case under that law to the
8,000 cases could not have been conclusive.
The Interdepartmental Com m ittee Study
The Interdepartmental Committee had the advantage o f working with
data collected especially for the purpose o f comparing the two systems.
63
64
Its objective and general conclusions have been stated in the preceding
chapter.
The Committee tested several different applications o f the benefit pro
visions o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A c t .1
Thus, it compared two different compensation methods with the existing
modified employers’ liability system .1
2 The first method, modified com
pensation, substituted the amounts actually paid fo r maintenance and
cure for the amounts payable under the provisions o f the workmen's
compensation act whenever the former were larger than the latter. In the
second method, straight compensation, no such substitution was made.
In both methods, the effects o f the following three different waiting
periods were tested: (a ) 7-day, from the date o f disability; ( b ) 7-day
from the end o f the voyage; and ( c ) no waiting period.
The Committee’s calculations showed that applications o f the L on g
shoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct’s benefit formula in
accordance with each o f the methods cited above would have yielded less
in pecuniary benefits to the disabled seamen as a group than they actu
ally received in settlement o f their claims under the existing modified
employers’ ^ability system. This would have been true with respect to all
extent categories o f cases, except the cases resulting in fatalities or per
manent total disabilities. Moreover, they showed that even under the
modified compensation method, with elimination o f the waiting period,
( 1) about 55 percent o f the seamen were better off under the existing
system than they would have been under the assumed workmen’s com
pensation system; (2 ) 20 percent were as well o ff; and (3 ) only about
25 percent were worse o ff .3
In making its calculations, however, the Committee was handicapped
b y the fact that in most cases the shipowners’ reports lacked the inform a
tion necessary to compute the average monthly earnings o f the seamen
affected. Since the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation
A ct provides weekly benefits o f 66% percent o f the “ average” weekly
wage, computed as one fifty-second part o f the “ average annual wage ,” 4
this factor was important. The Committee consulted officials o f ship
owners’ associations and o f seamen’s unions, with a view to determining
the average number o f months seamen are employed per year. A s a result,
the Committee calculated the average monthly wage of. the seamen in
volved on the assumption o f an average employment period o f 8 % months
per year per seaman. This had the effect o f yielding a relatively low
average monthly benefit, and was an important factor contributing to the
relatively poor showing, indicated in the preceding paragraph, o f the
workmen’s compensation system. Further calculations by the Committee
showed that even if the average yearly employment had been 10 months,
the total o f the workmen’s compensation benefits would still have been
lower than the total o f the actual net settlements under the existing sys
tem. The Committee estimated, however, that if employment fo r the
full year were assumed, the total o f the workmen’s compensation bene
fits would have been greater than the total o f the actual net settlements
recovered. The difference in favor o f the workmen’s compensation sys
1 This act calls for benefits, during the full period of total disability, of 66-2/3 percent of
the worker’s average weekly wage, not to exceed $7,500 in the aggregate.
* For details of the procedure used, see Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (p. 32).
8 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (p. 36).
4 Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, Public No. 803 (69th Cong.),
sec. 8 and 10.
65
tem would have been small, only 8 percent under the most liberal
compensation method tested. The Committee pointed out that, even under
this liberal application o f the workmen’s compensation system, seamen
temporarily or partially disabled would have fared worse than they actu
ally did.
O n the basis o f the above results o f its statistical analysis and the care
ful consideration o f other factors, the Committee reached the conclusion
outlined in the preceding chapter and set minimum standards for a
workmen’s compensation system for merchant seamen. The Committee,
however, had no opportunity to test the adequacy o f these standards.
W hile it was in a position to state that the benefits thereunder would,
on the whole, have exceeded the actual recoveries under the existing
system, but that temporarily disabled seamen as a group would lose, it
did hot make a detailed comparison o f the probable benefits under the
minimum standards it proposed with the actual recoveries under the
existing system. It left many questions unanswered. F or example:
(1 ) What kind o f disability cases would fare better under the proposed
system than under the existing system? (2 ) W hat proportion o f the
injury cases, resulting in the different extents o f disability, would benefit
under the proposed system? (3 ) W hat proportion o f the disease cases
would fare better? (4 ) W ould the proposed system benefit seamen dis
abled on dry-cargo vessels more than those on tankers? W ould it benefit
those on long foreign voyages more than those on short inland-water
voyages? (5 ) W ould it benefit the licensed officers more than the
unlicensed seamen ? ( 6 ) W hich o f the compensable items, if any, would
fare better under the proposed system?
Probable Atm rds Under System Proposed b y Interdepartmental
Committee Versus Actual N et Settlements
The present attempt to compare the pecuniary value o f the two sys
tems seeks to evaluate the adequacy o f the minimum standards set by
the Interdepartmental Committee. It assumes a hypothetical workmen’s
compensation law for merchant seamen meeting the minimum standards
set by the Committee. It is based on the primary data collected by the
Interdepartmental Committee. The probable award, under such a law,
was computed fo r each case reported to the Committee which contained
sufficient data for the purpose. This probable award was then compared
with the actual net settlement effected in the particular case.
BENEFIT PROVISIONS OF TH E HYPOTHETICAL LAW
Waiting Period
There would be no waiting period. Compensation would begin after
the period “ to the end o f the voyage.”
Benefit Scale
The benefit scale would be the same as that provided in the Lon g
shoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct (sections 8 and 9 ),
but with minimum and maximum benefit rates modified to conform with
the standards set by the Interdepartmental Committee:
Nonfatal disability.— Benefits would amount to two-thirds o f average
monthly earnings; with a minimum daily benefit rate o f $4 fo r super
66
visory and officer personnel and $2 for other personnel, and a maximum
daily benefit rate fo r all personnel o f $4. These benefits would be payable
as follow s:
(a ) Temporary total disability, for the duration o f the disability.
( b) Permanent partial disability, for specified number o f weeks de
pending on the extent o f the disability, and in accordance with the pro
visions o f section 8 ( c ) o f the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W ork ers’
Compensation act .5
( c ) Permanent total disability, fo r life.
Fatal cases.— Benefits would be the same as those provided in section 9
o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, but the
dependents’ benefits would be calculated on the basis o f maximum weekly
earnings o f $42 and minimum weekly earnings o f $ 21. Funeral expense
benefit would not exceed $ 200, and dependents’ benefits would be as
fo llo w s :
(a) W ife or husband. 35 percent o f average earnings, during w idow
hood.
( b ) Children, if no surviving parent, 15 percent o f average earnings
to first child, and 10 percent to each additional child, under age 18, or
incapable o f self-support by reason o f mental or physical disability.
(c ) Children, if parent survives deceased, 10 percent o f average earn
ings to each child, under age 18, or incapable o f self-support by reason
o f mental or physical disability.
(d ) Grandchildren, brothers, sisters, if there be no surviving w ife or
husband, or dependent children, or the amounts payable to them is less
than 66% percent o f average earnings, 15 percent o f average earnings
to each such person, under age 18, or incapable o f self-support by reason
o f mental or physical disability.
( e ) Parent, or grandparent, if there be no surviving w ife or husband,
or dependent children, or the amounts payable to them is less than
66% percent o f average earnings, 25 percent o f average earnings to each
such person during period o f dependency.
( / ) The aggregate amount payable under ( a ) , and (fc) and ( c )
above, not to exceed 66% percent o f average earnings; the aggregate
amount payable under (d ) and (e ) above, not to exceed the difference
between 66 % percent o f average earnings and the amount payable to sur
viving w ife or dependent husband, or children.
Basis for benefit scale.— The benefit scale would be based upon the
average monthly earnings o f the seaman derived as fo llo w s: Total cash
wage payments for the period o f employment immediately preceding the
disability (as reported by the shipowner), divided by the number o f
months in such period o f employment. (These payments include all cash
payments, such as basic wages, overtime, bonuses, and all other emolu
ments.) T o this average monthly cash earnings, the monthly value o f sub
sistence and lodgings ($48 for officer and supervisory personnel, $36 fo r
other personnel) would be added. This formula would satisfy the Inter
section 8(c) reads as follows: “ Permanent partial disability:'In case of disability partial
in character but permanent in quality, the compensation shall be 66-2/3 per centum of the
average weekly wages, which shall be in addition to compensation for temporary total disability
paid in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section, and shall be paid to the employee, as
fellows: (1) Arm lost, two hundred and eighty weeks' compensation. (2) Leg lost, two hundred
and forty-eight weeks' compensation. (3) Hand lost, two hundred and twelve weeks' compensa
tion. (4) Foot lost, one hundred and seventy-three weeks' compensation. (5) Eye lost, one
hundred and forty weeks' compensation. (6) Thumb lost, fifty-one weeks' compensation, etc.''
(Comparable benefits provided for other anatomical losses, or physical disabilities).
67
departmental Committee’s recommendation for benefits “ computed on
full-time wage base, together with the value o f subsistence and lodgings
and remuneration for overtime and bonuses/’
Total benefit, or award.— This would be calculated according to the
provisions o f the Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation
A ct, subject to the preceding modifications, and the waiving o f the limita
tion o f total benefits to $7,500, imposed by the Longshoremen’s and
Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct .6
PROBABLE AWARDS UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL WORKMEN’ S
COMPENSATION LAW
The Interdepartmental Committee received from shipowners, 5,990
case reports involving claims closed or pending in 1938, which con
tained sufficient data to be evaluated under the hypothetical workmen’s
compensation law. These included 141 injury and disease cases involving
neither permanent disabilities nor loss o f time, and 37 cases still pend
ing when the reports were filed with the Committee in the winter o f
1940. Since the 141 cases would not have been compensable under the
hypothetical workmen’s compensation act and the actual settlements for
the 37 pending cases was not yet known, the comparison between the
actual settlements and the probable awards, undertaken in the present
study, could be made in 5,812 cases. These cases include 156 cases for
which no claims were actually made, or fo r which settlements were
denied to the seaman or his representative, but which were nevertheless
considered compensable under the hypothetical workmen’s compensation
law. In some o f these cases, wages to the end o f the voyage, or out
patient or convalescent maintenance allowances, or both, were paid by
the shipowners.
W hen the benefits for each o f the 5,812 cases are evaluated in accord
ance with the provisions outlined above, it is estimated that under a sea
men’s workmen’s compensation law, incorporating the minimum stand
ards recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee and applied in
the manner indicated above, the total awards for these cases would have
amounted to about $2,197,800. The estimated probable awards for injury
and disease cases o f varying extents o f disability are shown in table 12.
ACTUAL NET SETTLEMENTS AND PROBABLE AWARDS COMPARED
The total probable awards for the 5,812 cases under a workmen’s com
pensation law incorporating the minimum standards recommended by the
Interdepartmental Committee would have exceeded the total net settle
ments actually effected. A s against a total for actual net settlements
o f $1,637,300/ the probable awards would have amounted to about
$2,197,800.*7
•Longshorem en’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, as amended, sec. 14(m ).
7 Actually, the gross settlements for the above cases amounted to $1,977,195 or only
$220,615 less than the estimated probable awards. Thus, the awards would have amounted to
only 10 percent more than the actual total paid by the shipowners. When an allowance is made
for the employers’ liability insurance premiums (that part of the protective and indemnity
insurance applicable to personal injury coverage) shipowners’ attorney fees, costs of operating
a Claims department, and other costs incident thereto, the actual outlay by employers undoubtedly
exceeded not only the total probable awards, but probably also the other costs which would
have been incurred, Rad the claims reported been covered by a seaman’s workmen’s compensation
law.
68
T able 12.— Probable Awards Under a Hypothetical Seamen?$ Workmen’s
Compensation Law, by Extent of Disability
{Cases reported closed in 1938]
All cases
Extent
of
disability
Number
Total
amount
All extents ..................
5,812
Injury cases
Probable awards
Fatal ..............................
Permanent total ..........
Permanent partial . . . .
Temporary total ........
139
21
224
5,428
Probable awards
Average
per case
Number
Total
amount
$2,197,805
$375.75
3,957
$1,426,362
$360.47
735,744
225,053
426,682
810,326
5,293.12
10,716.81
1,904.83
149.27
71
9
208
3,669'
454,667
69.736
377,257
524,702
6,403.76
7,748.44
1,813.74
143.01
Average
per case
Disease cases
Probable awards
Extent of disability
Number
Total
amount
All extents.....................................................................
1,855
$771,443
$415.87
Fatal................................................ ........................... ..
68
12
16
1,759
281,077
155,317
49,425
285,624
4,133.48
12,943.08
3,089.06
162.38
Permanent total .......................... .........................
Permanent partial.........................................................
Temporary total ............................................................
Average
per case
Settlement Amounts Versus Compensation Amounts
The cases involving fatalities and permanent total disabilities would
have fared much better under the compensation system than those in
volving permanent partial or temporary total disabilities. Thus, while
the former would have aggregated over $670,000 more than they actually
did, the latter would have aggregated almost $109,500 less. This is shown
in table 13.
T able 13.— Comparison of Probable Awards with Actual Net Recoveries,
by Extent of Disability
[Cases reported closed in 1938]
*
Type and* extent
of disability
Number
of cases
Probable
award
Net
recovery
All extents....................
Injuries................
Diseases ................
5,812
3,957
1,855
$2,197,805
1,426,362
. 771,443
Fatal
139
71
68
21
9
12
224
208
16
5,428
3,669
1,759
735,744
454,667
281,077
225,053
69,736
155,317
426,682
377,257
49,425
810,326
524,702
285,624
..............................
Injury ..................
Disease ................ .
Permanent total............
Injury ..................
Disease ................ *
Permanent partial........
Injury ..................
Disease ................
Temporary total ..........
Injury ..................
Disease ................
Difference1
Total
amount
Average
per case
Percent
$1,637,281
1,326,067
311,214
$560,524
100,295
460,229
$96.45
25.35
248.10
34 2
7.6
147.8
216,987
199,121
17,866
73,792
46,552
27,240
437,437
423,865
13,572
909,065
656,529
282,536
518,757
255,546
263,211
151,261
23,184
128,077
— 10,755
— 46,608
35,853
— 98,739
— 131,827
33,088
'3,732.06
3,599.24
3,870.75
7,202.90
2,576.00
10,673.08
— 48.01
— 224.07
2,240.80
— 18.19
— 35.93
18.81
239.1
127.8
1473.0
205.0
49.8
470.2
— 2.5
— 11.0
264.2
— 10.9
—*■20.1
13.1
1 Unless indicated by (— ) minus signs the differences indicate gains over the net recoveries.
Similarly, the advantages o f the proposed system would have been
far greater in disease cases than in injury cases. M oreover, all extent
groups o f disease cases, including the permanent partial and temporary
total cases, would have experienced a gain under the proposed system.
69
In general, the pecuniary advantage o f the proposed workmen’s com
pensation system would have been in direct relation to the extent o f the
disability. The more serious the disability, the greater the advantage.
Cases Gaining Versus Cases Losing Under the Proposed System
Since the temporary total disability cases included over 93 percent o f
all cases compared, the above observation throws some doubt upon the
pecuniary advantage o f the workmen’s compensation system over the
existing employers’ liability system. A n analysis o f the number and
types o f disability cases in which recoveries would have been greater,
smaller, and equal under a workmen’s compensation system than those
actually effected under the existing system leads to the conclusion that
almost half o f the cases resulted in actual net recoveries that exceeded
the probable awards. Only about 46 percent o f the cases would have
been better off under the proposed system, and less than 5 percent o f
them would have been just as well off.
Table 14.— Cases Gaining Versus Cases Losing Under a Proposed Workmen’s
Compensation Law, by Extent of Disability
[Cases reported closed in 1938]
Cases in which workmen’s compensation as compared
with employers’ liability would have resulted in—
Extent of
disability
All
cases
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
All cases .................. ..
Injury ........................
Disease ......................
5,812
3,957
1,853
2,680
1,653
1,027
46.1
41.8
55.4
2,868
2,161
707
49.3
54.6
38.1
264
143
121
4.6
3.6
6.5
Fatal ..................................
Injury ........................
Disease ......................
Permanent total ................
Injury ......................
Disease ......................
Permanent .partial ..........
Injury ......................
Disease ......................
Temporary total ..............
Injury ......................
Disease ......................
139
71
68
21
9
12
224
208
16
5,428
3,669
1,759
129
61
68
21
9
12
131
115
16
2,399
1,468
931
92^8
85.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
58.5
55.3
100.0
44.2
40.0
52.9
10™
10
0
0
0
0
92
92
0
2,766
2,059
707
7.2
13.1
0
0
0
o
41.1
44.0
0
51.0
56.1
40.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
263
142
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gain
Neither gain
nor loss
Loss
.4
.5
0
4.8
3.9
6.9
Cases Involving Disabilities of Different Extents
Only in fatal and permanent total disability cases would disabled sea
men definitely have fared better under workmen’s compensation. In per
manent partial disability cases, on the other hand, as many as 41 percent
would have fared worse. O f the temporary total cases, which comprised
93 percent o f the cases studied, only 44 percent would have fared better,
less than 5 percent as well, and 51 percent would have fared worse.
Thus, the larger proportion o f the temporarily disabled seamen actually
recovered larger sums under the existing employers’ liability system
than they would have under the proposed workmen’s compensation sys^tem. W hile this is especially true with regard to injured seamen, seamen
disabled through disease would not have obtained much more under the
proposed system than they actually recovered. Only 40 percent o f the
injury cases and not quite 53 percent of the disease cases would have
been better off under the proposed system.
70
Another factor casting some doubt on the monetary advantage o.f the
proposed workmen’s compensation system over the existing employers’
liability system is that when the cases are separated into those in which
the proposed system would have resulted in a monetary gain over the
existing system, and those in which a loss would have resulted, it is
found that fo r permanent partial and temporary total cases (these
include over 97 percent o f all the cases compared) the average gain would
have been substantially smaller than the average loss.
From a strictly financial point o f view, therefore, the proposed system
does not appear to be preferable to the existing system. W hile nearly half
o f the cases reported actually did* fare better than they would have, over
45 percent o f the cases did not.
Cases Settled Through Seamen9s Attorneys
Seamen who employed attorneys were only slightly better off, after
having paid their attorneys’ fees, than they would have been under the
proposed workmen’s compensation system .8 About 50 percent o f them
netted more than they would have under the proposed system, and their
actual net recoveries aggregated 50 percent more than the amounts which
would have been awarded to them. W hile only 48* percent would have
been awarded more than actually received, the amounts would have e x
ceeded the settlements by 120 percent.
Comparing temporary total disability cases only, it is found that almost
54 percent o f the seamen who employed attorneys 9 recovered net settle
ments which were larger than the amounts which would have been
awarded under the proposed system. The reverse would have been true
for only 45 percent o f these seamen. It is interesting to note that while
the proportion o f injured seamen, who were actually better o ff under the
existing system than they would have been under the proposed system,
was greater for those who employed attorneys than for those who did
n o t; file proportion of seamen suffering from diseases who were actually
better off under the existing system was smaller for those who employed
attorneys than for those who did not.
COMPENSATION AND SETTLEMENT ITEMS COMPARED
The somewhat stronger position o f the existing employers’ liability
system, as compared with the proposed workmen’s compensation sys
tem, is due largely to relative weights given the items presently consid
ered in arriving at the amount o f settlement to be paid in each case.
Items Considered Under Each System
The proposed system would retain the seamen’s traditional rights, but
instead o f negotiated or litigated indemnities for pain and suffering and
for permanent physical impairments, a definite scale o f compensation
awards for lost time and for permanent physical impairments would be
substituted. A comparison o f the items considered under each system
will, therefore, throw light on how they differ from each other.
8 This is not surprising since seamen who employed attorneys received on the average
larger net settlements than those who did not. See supra (p. 39).
•This group included 17 percent of the seamen temporarily disabled.
71
T able 15.— Comparison of Certain Provisions Under Both Liability and
Compensation Systems
PROPOSED WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION SYSTEM
PRESENT MODIFIED EMPLOYERS*
LIABILITY SYSTEM
1.
Wages to the end of the voyage:
Full cash wages (exclusive of the
value of subsistence and lodging) from
the date disability begins to the date
it ends, or the end of the round-trip
voyage for which the seaman was engaged,
which ever occurs first.
2.
Maintenance and cure:
(a) Hospitalization. No cash payment
during this period.
1.
Wages to the end of the voyage:
Same.
2.
Maintenance and cure:
(a) Hospitalization: Cash compensa
tion for loss of time, at 66-2/3 percent
of average daily earnings (including the
value of subsistence and lodging). Mini
mum $2 per day, maximum $4 per day.
(b) Out-patient
and
convalescence
period. Same as above.
(b) Out-patient
and
convalescence
period. Cash allowance at $4 to $4.50
per day for licensed and supervisory rat
ings, and $2 to $2.50 for others.
3.
Indemnity, negotiated or litigated:
Payable, regardless of extent of disa
bility, if negligence of employer (or his
representative) can be proven. None in
cases of force majeure.
3.
Scheduled benefits:
Payable only in fatal and permanent
disability cases, but regardless of negli
gence, or force majeure.
4.
Other costs:
Actual expenses incurred for funeral,
artificial limbs, appliances, traveling ex
penses, hospitalization and medical care
not furnished by U. S. Marine Hospi
tals, etc.
4.
Other costs:
Same.
Values o f Compensation and Settlement Items
The comparative monetary value o f each o f these items is set forth in
table 16.
Wages, being payable for the same periods and at the same rates,
would have identical values. Similarly “ other costs” covering exactly the1
2
T able 16.— Comparison of Average Actual Net Settlements in Reported Disability
Cases Occurring in 1938, with Probable Award Under Proposed System, by Item
Total
Number
of cases
Settle
ment
Award
Wages
settle
ment or
award1
All cases ..........................
5,458
$263
$359
$28
$31
Cases gaining..................
Cases losing ....................
Cases neither gaining nor
losing ............................
2,507
2,697
213
326
572
186
25
30
45
20
254
82
82
37
3
Status of cases
under workmen’s
compensation
Status of cases
under workmen’s
compensation
Out-patient
or con
valescent
Settlement
Indemnity or
scheduled
benefit
Award
Hospi
taliza
tion
award*
Other costs
settlement, or
award1
Settlement
Award
All cases ........................
$60
$80
$158
$203
$17
Cases gaining................
Cases losing ..................
Cases neither gaining nor
losing ........................
69
59
100
66
105
222
385
53
18
16
29
31
5
0
13
1 These payments would be the same under each system.
2 Under the present system no cash payment is made for the hospitalization period.
72
same items tinder each system would have the same value. The hospitali
zation period, however, is not compensable in cash under the existing
system since this system requires simply that maintenance and cure be
provided, and these are provided in most cases at United States Marine
Hospitals at no cost to the shipowner or the seaman. In the few cases
when these are provided in private hospitals they appear as “ other costs”
and are included under that heading.
The entire group o f cases, as a group, would have averaged larger
payments for the out-patient and convalescent period under the work
men’s compensation system than they did under the existing system.
O n the other hand, the average o f the scheduled benefits under the
workmen’s compensation system would have exceeded that o f the indem
nity payments under the existing system only in the cases which would
have benefited under that system. The indemnities paid in these cases
averaged less than half those paid in the cases in which the seamen
would have lost under the proposed system. It must be pointed out,
moreover, that in the cases which would have suffered under the pro
posed system the hospital benefits which would have been payable only
under the workmen’s compensation system would not have been large
enough to offset the large indemnities paid.
Status of Temporary Total Disability Cases
Since the temporary total disabilities comprised the great proportion
o f all cases, and since less than 45 percent o f them would have benefitted
under the proposed workmen’s compensation system, a comparison o f
the average payments for each compensation and settlement item is
enlightening.
T able 17.— Comparison of Average Actual Net Settlements in Reported Temporary
Total Disability Cases Occurring in 1938, with Probable Awards Payable Under
Proposed System, by Item
Status of
cases under
workmen's
compensation
Total
Number
of cases
Average
Settle
ment
Wages1
Award
Out-patient
Indem
or con
Hospi
nity
taliza
valescent
settletion
ment
award2 Settle
ment Award only8
Other
costs1
All cases..........
5,114
$1.59
$139
$28
$28
$57
$76
$62
$10
Cases gaining . .
Cases losing . . .
Cases neither
gaining nor
losing ............
2,255
2,605
104
215
167
126
25
30
40
19
62
66
95
64
10
116
7
13
254
34
84
37
3
29
31
5
13
1 These payments would be the same under each system.
2 Under the present system no cash payment is made for the hospitalization period.
8 Payable under the existing system only. No scheduled benefit payable for temporary total
cases under the proposed system.
The average probable award fo r the out-patient and convalescent periods
in the temporary total disability cases, as in all cases, would have
been greater than the average actual maintenance allowance, regardless
o f whether or not the cases would have fared better under the proposed
system than they actually did. However, the indemnities payable in tem
porary total cases under the existing system could not be offset by sched
uled benefits, since under the workmen’s compensation system these would
not have been payable in temporary total disability cases. These indemni
ties were considerably larger in the cases which would have lost under
73
the proposed system than in those which would have gained. Moreover,
the average compensation for the hospitalization period (although payable
under the proposed system and not payable under the existing system)
would be relatively small. It is not surprising, therefore, that in over
50 percent o f the temporary total disability cases, the proposed system
would have resulted in compensation awards which would have been
smaller than the actual net settlements effected under the modified em
ployers’ liability system.
Injury Cases Versus Disease Cases
That the payment o f indemnities under the existing system is the
factor making the settlements o f seamen’s disability cases more ad
vantageous under the existing system than under the proposed workmen’s
compensation system becomes even more obvious when the comparison
o f the results under each system is made separately fo r the temporary
total injury cases and fo r the temporary total disease cases. Since the
payments for wages, and for “ other costs” would be the same under each
system, these items need not be considered. A comparison o f the other
significant compensable or settlement items is made in table 18.
T able 18.--Comparison of Average Net Settlements in Reported Temporary Total
Disabling Injuries and Diseases Occurring in 1938, with Probable Awards Under
Proposed System, by Item
Type of case
and status of case
under workmen's
compensation
All items
Number
of
cases
Settle
ment
Award
All cases............................
5,114
$159
$139
Injury cases ....................
Gaining ....................
Losing ......................
Neither......................
3,436
1,376
1,924
136
172
106
227
75
138
159
127
75
Disease cases ..................
Gaining ....................
Losing *...................
Neither....................
1,678
879
681
118
133
102
181
90
150
182
120
90
Hospital
ization
(award
only)
Out-patient and
convalescent
Settle
ment
Award
Indemnity
(settle
ment
only)
$28
$57
$76
$62
22
29
16
3
64
69
61
51
80
101
68
54
72
7
123
7
42
59
26
2
44
50
42
3
66
86
52
4
47
15
97
3
The figures in table 18 show quite clearly that the indemnities in the
cases which actually fared better under the existing system than they
would have under the proposed system, were quite substantial and were
several times the amount which would have been paid for the hospitaliza
tion period. In injury cases they averaged almost 8 times the probable
hospital period compensation, and in disease cases almost 4 times. W hile
in each group the average probable award for the maintenance and out
patient periods would have been greater than the average actual settle
ment for this period, the difference would have been relatively small.
Conclusion
The conclusion, therefore, is that the indemnity payable under the
existing system— payable even in temporary total disease cases— is the
settlement item which makes the existing system advantageous in dollars
and cents. I f a workmen’s compensation law for seamen is to yield
pecuniary benefits to individual seamen comparable to those payable under
697369°— 46—6
74
the existing system, it must contain a benefit formula liberal enough to
offset this item. The difference, obviously, lies in the fact that workmen’s
compensation is supposed to compensate for actual or anticipated wage
loss, but not for pain and suffering— which is covered by the indemnity
item under the existing settlement system.
Comparison o f Different Categories o f Cases
CASES ON VESSELS ENGAGED IN
VARIOUS SERVICES
The conclusions reached with reference to all cases appear to apply
regardless o f the type o f trade or type o f vessel on which the disability
occurred. Thus, except fo r the Great Lakes service, it is found that the
proportion o f the disabled seamen who would have gained under the
proposed system would have been somewhat smaller than those who
would not. Nevertheless, there are some differences. Table 19 shows the
proportions o f the cases occurring in each service which would have
resulted in gains, losses, or neither under the proposed system.
T able 19.— Percent of Cases in Which Workmen’s Compensation Would Have
Resulted in Gain, Loss, or Neither Gain nor Loss, by Service of Vessel
[Seamen reported disabled in 1938]
Number
of
cases
Average
gain or
loss
All services ............
5,458
Coastwise ..............
Intercoastal ............
Nearby foreign . . . .
Overseas foreign ..
Great Lakes ..........
Inland ....................
2,599
482
405
1,211
188
593
Service
Percent of cases which would
have resulted in—
Neither gain
nor loss
Gain
Loss
+ $96
45.9
49.4
4.7
+ 66
+ 113
+ 123
+ 90
4- 196
+ 178
46.7
31.8
44.4
46.7
54.8
49.9
50.1
59.3
51.9
45.9
42.6
46.7
3.2
8.9
3.7
7.4
2.7
3.4
CASES ON VESSELS OF DIFFERENT TYPES
W ith the exception o f the few cases which occurred on ferries, fishing
vessels, tugs, and an unclassified group o f vessels ,10 the proportion o f
those which would have benefited financially under the proposed system
were somewhat smaller than those which would have lost, regardless o f
the type o f vessel on which the seamen were disabled. (See table 20.)
CASES INVOLVING SEAMEN OF DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONAL LEVELS
Classifying the seamen by major occupational groups, it is found that,
with the exception o f fishermen and a miscellaneous group which includes
pursers, ships’ surgeons, clerks, etc. (about 1 percent o f the total) no
occupational group would have fared definitely better financially under
the proposed system than it did under the existing system. Certain groups,
such as masters and chief engineers, would have fared much worse.
A s a group, members o f the stewards’ department would have fared
somewhat better than those o f other departments, and the members o f
the deck department would have been worse off than those o f other
departments.
10 These include only 4 cases.
75
T able 20.— Percent of Cases in Which Workmen's Compensation Would Have
Resulted in Gain, Loss, or Neither Gain nor Loss, by Type of Vessel
[Seamen reported disabled in 1938]
vessel
Number
of
cases
All types ..........................
5,458
Barge ................................
Ferry ................................
Fishing ..............................
Freight ..............................
Passenger ........................
Tanker ..............................
Tug ....................................
Unclassified......................
107
78
38
2,151
1,217
1,750
113
4
Average
gain or
loss
Percent of cases which would
have resulted in—
Neither gain
nor loss
Gain
Loss
+ $96
45.9
49.4
4.7
+ 394
+ 182
4* 268
+ 121
+ 11
+ 81
+ 392
— 54
43.0
76.9
68.4
44.0
42.5
47.5
64.6
75.0
54.2
16.7
29.0
50.0
52.2
49.8
31.0
25.0
2.8
6.4
2.6
6.0
5.3
2.7
4.4
0
Except for the fishermen and the miscellaneous groups already men
tioned, in only 5 o f the other 18 occupational groups would more than
50 percent o f the disabled seamen have fared better under the proposed
system than they actually did, and in none o f them would more than
59 percent have fared better. (See table 21.). It must be pointed out,
however, that in each o f the remaining 12 groups (e^pepting chief engi
neer) the proportion which would have benefited under the proposed
system was significant, ranging from 32.6 to 49.8 percent.
T able 21.— Percent of Cases in Which
Workmen's Compensation Would Have
Resulted in a Gain, a Loss, or Neither Gain nor Loss, by Occupational Group
[Seamen reported disabled in 1938]
Occupational group
Number
of
cases
Total
average
gain1
2
Percent of cases in which workmen’s
compensation would have resulted in—
Gain
Loss
Neither gain
nor loss
All groups ..........................
5,458
$96
45.9
49.4
4.7
Master ..................................
Deck department ................
Licensed officer ..........
Petty officer ................
Able seaman................
Ordinary seaman . . .
Other ............................
92
2,217
197
261
1,203
527
29
486
71
303
62
30
77
202
32.6
44.3
45.2
47.1
45.6
39.1
58.6
64.1
51.6
49.2
49.1
51.3
55.0
41.4
3.3
4.1
5.6
3.8
3.1
5.9
0
Engine department . . . . . . .
Chief engineer ..........
Other licensed officers
Petty officer ................
Fireman, etc..................
Wiper ..........................
Other ...........................
1,808
31
271
569
486
382
69
89
59
241
136
29
5
15
46.3
19.4
39.9
50.6
49.8
42.7
43.5
48.9
80.6
55.7
43.4
46.9
51.6
53.6
4.8
0
4.4
6.0
3.3
5.7
2.9
Steward’s department ----Chief stewards ..........
Other supervisory . . .
Skilled ratings ..........
Waiters, etc..................
Other ..........................
1,341
89
47
295
636
184
117
408
212
•188
59
41
47.5
55.1
57.5
55.9
43.1
42.9
46.7
37.1
31.9
39.3
50.3
54.4
5.8
7.8
10.6
4.8
6.6
2.7
Radio operator ..................
Fisherman............................
Miscellaneous2 ....................
24
28
38
501
45
11
41.7
89.3
63.1
50.0
10.7
31.6
8.3
0
5.3
1 No average loss would have resulted for any one category.
2 Includes pursers, ships’ surgeons, clerks, etc.
Effects o f Increasing the Compensation Rates
From the comparisons in the preceding pages it seems clear that the
proposed workmen’s compensation system does not offer the seamen as
76
a group, any distinct monetary advantage over the present modified
employers’ liability system. The probable awards under the proposed sys
tem, estimated fo r the cases compared, were computed on the basis o f
the compensation rate most commonly found in American workm en’s
compensation laws— 66% percent o f the average earnings .11
It may be suggested, however, that this compensation rate, although
finding support in existing workmen s compensation legislation, is too
low .12 Indeed, it has been argued that a disabled individual’s living ex
penses are no smaller than those o f a perfectly healthy one and that
the compensation rate should be at least equal to the full average earn
ings o f the individual.13 W hat constitutes an equitable and just w ork
men’s compensation rate is beyond the scope o f this study. But, the
comparison between actual settlements under the existing modified em
ployers’ liability system and probable awards under a workmen’s com
pensation system especially designed fo r seamen would be more complete,
if the probable awards were estimated on the bases o f various alternative
compensation rates. Accordingly, two additional estimates o f probable
awards, one using 75 percent of the average earnings, and the other using
80 percent o f the average earnings, were made with a view to determin
ing whether, and^if so to what extent, those higher rates would make
workmen’s compensation more advantageous financially to the seamen
than the existing system.
The comparisons made on the basis o f a compensation rate o f 66 %
percent o f average earnings make it clear that in a high proportion o f
the fatal and permanent disability cases the probable awards would have
been greater than the actual settlements. O nly about 44 percent o f the
temporary total disability cases, however, would have benefited under
the proposed workmen’s compensation system. It is only necessary, there
fore, to test the additional compensation rates on the temporary total
disability cases. The results are shown below in the percentage distribu
tion o f the 5,114 reported temporary total disability cases in which
workmen’s compensation would have resulted in gains, losses, or neither
gains nor losses, by assumed compensation rate.
Compensation rates (assumed) :
66% percent o f earnings.....
75 percent o f earnings.........
80 percent o f earnings...........
Percent of cases—
Neither gaining
Gaining
Losing
nor losing
44.2
50.0
53.0
51.0
45.8
43.0
4.8
4.2
4.0
As is to be expected, the higher the compensation rate, the greater
the proportion o f cases which would have benefited under the hypothetical
workmen’s compensation system. The effect o f the higher compensation
rates, however, would have been small.
From a strictly pecuniary point o f view, it appears that the proposed
workmen’s compensation system is likely to be o f distinct advantage to
only about half o f the disabled seamen. In the aggregate, however, the
awards which would be payable thereunder may be expected to be some
what higher than the total of the net amounts recoverable by disabled
11 See Problems of Workmen’s Compensation Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bulletin No. 672 (pp. 204-210).
32 The Sixth Annual Conference on Labor Legislation held in 1939, recommended this rate
as a “minimum.” Senate Hearings on H. R. 6881, op. cit. (p. 56).
18 Idem (p. 282), Statement by Bjorne Hailing, executive secretary, CIO Maritime Com
mittee.
77
seamen tinder the existing modified employers5liability system. M oreover,
the proposed system is definitely certain to benefit the more serious cases
— i.e., the fatal and the permanent total disability cases. The foregoing
analysis shows that in the majority o f cases— i.e., the temporary total
disability cases— barely half would benefit under the benefit formula o f
the proposed system. I f it is recognized that the workmen’s compensa
tion system sets a minimum standard o f adequacy, then it follows that
under the existing system about half o f the temporarily disabled seamen
are not adequately protected. O n the basis o f the minimum standards
recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee and applying the
compensation rate most commonly found in American workmen’s com
pensation laws— 66% percent o f wages— it is estimated that over 44 per
cent o f the temporarily disabled seamen are not adequately protected
under the existing modified employers’ liability system.
Appendix 1.— Scope and M ethod
Seamen Covered
I
This study deals with seamen employed on merchant vessels operating
under the American flag. It includes the masters and all the members o f
the crews .of such vessels, whether in the pay o f the ship operators or
o f concessionaires; whether engaged in navigating the ship or in operat
ing or servicing its mechanical equipment, serving other members o f the
crews or passengers, or performing other work.
The vessels whose personnels are included in this study are restricted
to the so-called merchant types, i.e., combination passenger and freight
vessels, dry-cargo vessels, tankers, ferries, tugs, and barges. Thus, mili
tary vessels o f the United States Navy and Arm y are excluded. Similarly,
such Government vessels as those o f the United States Geodetic Survey,
harbor-patrol boats, and fireboats, are also excluded. Except where specifi
cally mentioned, fishing vessels are excluded because o f the peculiar
method o f wage payment prevailing in that industry. Other types o f
excluded vessels are those engaged in special services such as cable
laying, dredging, pile-driving, elevator, icebreaking, pilot, welding, and
wrecking. N o exclusion was made on the basis o f the trades or services
in which the vessels were operating.
Period Covered
The period covered is the calendar year 1938.
The year 1938 was chosen because it was the last year during which
merchant seamen, engaged in deep-sea shipping, sailed under peacetime
conditions. Although the United States did not enter W orld W ar II
until December 8 , 1941, American shipping on the high seas was imme
diately interfered with when the war broke in Europe in September 1939.
Reports on Cases
COMPANY REPORTS
Ship operators were requested to submit a separate report for each
case o f injury, illness, or death, closed or pending in 1938. These reports,
in addition to certain identifying and other information, called for the
following pertinent data regarding—
(1 ) The vessel on which the injury, illness, or death occurred: (a)
Type o f ship, tonnage, and its destination; and ( b ) dates showing begin
ning and end o f the voyage.
( 2 ) The seaman involved: (a ) H is age and occupational rating;
(b ) monthly wage rate, the duration o f employment with the responding
shipowner during the 12 months immediately preceding the date o f the
injury, illness, or death, and the total earnings during such period; and
(c ) in case o f death, the number and relationship o f his dependents.
(3 ) The injury, illness, or death: (a ) The date the injury or illness
began, or the death occurred; (b) the nature o f the injury or illness,
78
79
and extent o f permanent physical impairment; and ( c ) date pronounced
fit for duty.
( 4 ) Hospitalization: ( a ) Name and address o f hospital; and (b)
date admitted, discharged; number o f days in-patient, out-patient, and
convalescent.
( 5 ) The settlement: (a ) The total amount, if any, and its component
parts, i.e., wages, maintenance, indemnity, and other payments; (b)
method o f settlement, i.e., directly with the seaman, through seaman's
attorney, court, insurance com pany; and if through seaman's attorney,
the latter's name and address; and (c ) date o f settlement.
In addition to the case reports, ship operators were requested to sub
mit a report giving the following basic information sought for the year
1938:
( 1) The name o f each ship under their control which had been active
during the calendar year, or part thereof; ( 2 ) the average number of
months these ships were active; (3 ) the total man-days o f employment
on all active vessels; and (4 ) the cost o f handling the cases closed or
pending,
ATTORNEY REPORTS
The seamen’s attorneys whose names were obtained from the above
case reports were requested to give, fo r each individual case handled by
them such information as: (a ) The amount o f the gross settlement;
(b) the attorney’s fe e ; (c) the amount o f other legal expense; and
(d ) the net amount finally recovered by the seaman.
HOSPITAL REPORTS
These were designed to supplement the shipowners' reports. In many
cases, shipowners had been unable, from their records, to furnish such
information as the nature and extent o f the disability, the duration o f
the treatment; and the date the disabled was fit for duty. T o obtain these
vital data, a questionnaire requesting the missing information was sent
to the hospital indicated on the case report, as having treated the seaman.
Scope o f Survey
The scope o f the Interdepartmental Committee's survey is revealed
by the fact that the Committee received replies from 337 shipowners
operating 2,769 vessels, and employing approximately 65,000 merchant
seamen. Case reports involving 7,434 seamen were filed by 262 o f the
337 shipowners. The other 75 shipowners inform ed the Committee that
they had had n o cases closed or pending in 1938. Reports on 433 cases,
373 o f which contained adequate data, were received from seamen's
attorneys .1
Incidence o f Injuries and Diseases
The statistical treatment o f this subject involved four broad steps:
( 1) The development o f an estimate o f the labor force involved, so as
to obtain some measure o f the number o f individuals affected; ( 2 ) the
development o f a measure o f the exposure to injuries and diseases;
(3 ) the development o f injury and illness frequency rates; and (4 ) the
application o f these rates to the exposure.
1 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (pp. 31, 32).
80
Estimate o f Maritime Labor Force
The maritime labor force is divided into two grou ps: (1 ) Merchant
seamen aboard active vessels, and ( 2 ) merchant seamen ashore between
voyages.
The number o f seamen a ship carries may vary with (a) its type,
( b ) method o f propulsion, (c ) size, and (d ) trade or service. In the
case o f passenger vessels, the number o f passengers carried is another
factor. The total number o f seamen on active vessels is therefore the
product o f the number o f vessels active and the above factors. F or the
purpose o f the present estimate it is convenient to divide the active labor
force into seamen on vessels operating on ( 1) the deep sea, ( 2 ) the Great
Lakes, and (3 ) inland waters other than the Great Lakes.
EMPLOYMENT ON ACTIVE DEEP-SEA VESSELS
This consists largely o f merchant seamen employed on board steam
and motor merchant vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over, operated in
the coastwise, intercoastal, and foreign trades. They are essentially o f the
follow ing types: Combination passenger and freight, dry cargo, and
tanker.
The United States Maritime Commission’s series o f estimates o f em
ployment on active vessels in this segment o f the industry, fo r the
period from January 1936 through the first 9 months o f 1939,2 were
as follow s:
Estimated A verage Monthly Employment o f Merchant Seamen on A ctive United
States Flag, Deep-sea Merchant Vessels o f 1,000 Gross Tons and Over, by Trade
and by Y ea r1
Year
Total
Foreign
Intercoastal
1936 ...................
1937 .................... ..
1938 ........................
19393 ......................
53,000
57,200
50,900
52,600
22,900
24,100
20,600
20,300
5.800
7,400
5,700
6,900
Coastwise
1
24'3O0
25,700
24,600
25,400
1 Source? United States Maritime Commission, Division of Economics and Statistics.
Includes only steam and motor vessels of the following types: Combination passenger and
freight vessels, dry cargo, and tanker.
3 First 9 months only.
The average for the period prior to the beginning o f the present war
is therefore estimated at about 53,500.
In addition, an allowance must be made for the employment on ves
sels other than steam and motor combination passenger and freight, drycargo, and tanker vessels, and on vessels under 1,000 gross tons. This
employment can be estimated by referring to the Vessel Personnel Sur
vey, 1938, by the U . S. Maritime Commission. This survey, which cov
ered about 74 percent o f the vessels in this service, indicates that approxi
mately 2,400 seamen were employed on July 15, 1938, on the vessels
reported. A djusting this figure to include all the vessels in this group the
average prewar employment on all active deep-sea vessels other than
steam and motor combination passenger and freight, dryrcargo, and
tanker vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over, may be estimated at approxi
mately 3,200 seamen.
The total average monthly employment on all active American-flag
deep-sea merchant vessels may therefore be estimated at 56,700 mer
chant seamen.
3 Ending, therefore, with the month when World War II started.
81
EMPLOYMENT ON ACTIVE GREAT LAKES VESSELS
The U . S. Maritime Commission’s series o f estimates o f employment
on active steam and motor combination passenger and freight, dry-cargo,
and tanker vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over operating on the Greats
Lakes show wide variations in the volume o f employment from year to
year. For the period 1936-39, inclusive, the average monthly employment
on these vessels during the 8-month Great Lakes navigation season was
estimated to be 11,300 in 1936, 13,300 in 1937, 7,500 in 1938, and 11,300
in 1939. The average fo r the four seasons may therefore be estimated
at 11,000 monthly.
T o this number must be added the employment on vessels other than
those o f the three types listed above and on vessels under 1,000 gross tons.
F or these vessels, the Vessel Personnel Survey, 1938, which covered
about 60 percent o f the Great Lakes tonnage, shows the reported employ
ment for July 15,1938, to have been approximately 2,650 seamen. Raising
this figure to include all such vessels, the employment for this segment
o f the Great Lakes fleet may therefore be estimated at 4,500 seamen.
The total average monthly employment for the 8-month season is there
fore estimated at 15,500. W hile some employment exists during the winter
months, such may be disregarded, since it is relatively small, very irregu
lar, and is made up o f individuals included in the above figures.
EMPLOYMENT ON ACTIVE INLAND VESSELS
The only data available on employment on vessels operated in the inland
service are those assembled in the U. S. Maritime Commission’s Vessel
Personnel Survey, 1938. N o similar survey was ever made fo r any other
period and in view o f the fact that the year 1938 was not one o f average
activity on inland waters, these data must be used carefully. In that
survey approximately 27,600 merchant seamen were reported as employed
on July 15, 1938, on combination passenger and freight vessels, dry-cargo
vessels, tankers, tugs, ferries, and barges operated on inland waters other
than the Great Lakes. Since the coverage o f the survey did not exceed
80 percent o f the tonnage in this service, the total employment on that
date may have been around 34,500. The month o f July, however, tends
to be the month o f peak employment in this service, and although no
study has ever been made o f monthly fluctuation o f employment on the
inland waters, if the monthly employment pattern o f the Great Lakes
service is used as a guide, it may be estimated that the average monthly
employment was around 30,000 merchant seamen.
ESTIMATES OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE
So far, the above estimates deal with employment on active vessels,
that is, the average number o f jobs in the industry. Because o f the nature
o f the industry, few seamen are continuously employed on their vessels
throughout the year. A s a rule, a vessel’s stay in port is o f very short
duration— so short that it allows the seaman very little time to spend with
his family, especially if his family does not reside in the port where the
vessel is docked, or to attend to his personal affairs ashore. This condi
tion compels many seamen to leave their ships at the end o f a voyage
and to seek employment on other ships when they have taken care o f
their personal affairs, or when their visits with their families are com
pleted. This characteristic o f the industry requires that the labor force
82
be at least large enough to allow for a shore reserve to furnish replace
ments fo r seamen leaving their ships at the end o f their voyages. W hile
no comprehensive study o f the size o f this shore reserve under peacetime
conditions has been made, the Interdepartmental Committee was inform ed
by representatives o f the shipowners and o f seamen’s unions that fo r the
deep-sea labor force the average period o f employment was as fo llo w s :
F or unlicensed seamen, approximately 7% months per year; and fo r li
censed officers, approximately 11 months per year .3 This averages ap
proximately 8y2 months for the entire crew.
Information obtained by the U . S. Maritime Commission from the
Lake Carriers' Association indicates that for Great Lakes operations the
shore reserve required during the navigation season is relatively small.
A bonus is paid at the end o f the season to seamen who have served
throughout the period. A s a result, licensed officers tend to serve fo r
the full season, and only 10 percent of the unlicensed personnel fail to
do so .4
Little is known with respect to the shore reserve requirement o f ves
sels in inland services. Because o f the short duration o f the voyages in
these services, and the fact that the seamen employed therein tend to live
at or near their vessels' terminal ports, only a small shore reserve may
be sufficient, probably about 15 percent.
Applying the above factors, to the employment estimates for active
vessels developed in the preceding pages, a total shore reserve o f approxi
mately 30,000 seamen may be required. The total labor force is, there
fore, estimated at about 132,300 merchant seamen.
Exposure to Occupational Accidents and Illnesses
The best method o f arriving at an estimate o f the number o f disability
cases which occurred during a given period in any industry is that o f
applying the disability-frequency rate fo r the period, in the industry
concerned, to the exposure to occupational accidents and illnesses in the
industry. A s a rule the frequency rate is expressed in terms o f number
o f cases per 1,000,000 man-hours o f exposure. A s already explained in
the body o f this report, it is not practical to measure employment on board
merchant vessels in terms o f 1,000,000 man-hours, but rather in terms o f
100,000 man-days o f employment.
From the Interdepartmental Committee's Form N o. 2, the number o f
man-days o f employment reported were classified by type, size, and trade
o f vessels operated. For example, for deep-sea vessels o f 1,000 gross tons
and over, the man-days o f employment reported were as fo llo w s:
Man-days
All types o f v e sse ls................................................................
Barge .................................................
F e r r y ...................................................
D ry cargo .........................................
Combination passenger and freight
Tanker ...............................................
Tug .....................................................
13,307,150
6,000
12,600
6,729,300
3,877,650
2,662,400
19,200
3 Interdepartmental Committee, op. cit. (p. 32).
4 Unemployment Insurance for Merchant Seamen, Hearings on Committee Prints 1 and 3,
before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives (78th Cong..
1st sess.), June 24, 1943 (p. 303).
83
The total number o f man-days of employment in the various segments
o f the industry was estimated by raising the number o f man-days re
ported, for each segment, by factors representing, for each segment, the
ratio o f the number o f vessels involved in the cases reported to the Inter
departmental Committee to the total number o f active vessels as estimated
from the Vessel Personnel Survey o f 1938 and Merchant Marine Statis
tics. Accordingly, the number o f man-days o f employment on active deepsea vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over, active in 1938, was estimated
to be as fo llo w s:
Man-days
A ll types o f vessels .........................
18,639,300
Barge .................................................
F e r r y ...................................................
Dry cargo .........................................
Combination passenger and freight
Tanker ................................................
Tug ...... ..............................................
109,200
25,200
8,936,600
4,684,800
4,845,100
38,400
FREQUENCY RATES
Frequency rates were developed separately for injuries and illnesses,
by extent o f resulting disability, fo r each segment o f the industry in
accordance with the following procedure.
From the Interdepartmental Committee Form No. 1, the cases reported
were classified by extent of disability resulting, and by type, size, and
trade o f the vessel on which they occurred. F or example, the number o f
injury cases reported to have occurred in 1938, on deep-sea dry-cargo
vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over, by extent o f disability was as
follow s:
Number of cases
Extent o f disability: Total . . ....................................................... 1,429
Fatal ..................................................................................................
19
Permanent total .............................................................................
5
Permanent partial .................................
64
Temporary total ............................................................................. 1,341
The number o f cases reported for each class o f vessels was divided by
the man-days, expressed in 100,000’s, o f employment reported for each
class o f vessel. The results were the frequency rates for each class o f
vessels. Thus, the estimated injury-frequency rates for deep-sea drycargo vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and over were calculated, by extent o f
disability as follow s:
Extent of disability
(1) Man-days of
employment
(in 100,000’s)
(2) Number
of cases
(3) Estimated
frequency
rate
(col. 2-f-col. 1)
T o t a l.........................................................
67.3
1,429
21.22
F a t a l.........................................................
Permanent t o t a l.....................................
Permanent p a rtia l.................................
Temporary total ....................................
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
19
5
64
1,341
.28
.07
.95
19.92
ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF GASES
A s already indicated, the number o f cases which occurred in 1938 is
merely the product o f the man-days o f employment and the frequency
84
rate. For example, fo r deep-sea dry-cargo vessels o f 1,000 gross tons and
over, the estimated number o f injuries in 1938 was calculated, by extent
of disability as shown b elow :
Extent of disability
(1) Estimated
man-days of
employment
(in 100,000’s)
(2) Estimated
frequency
rate
(3) Estimated
number of
cases
(col. I X col. 2)
T o t a l .........................................................
89.4
21.22
1,897
F a t a l..................................... ...................
Permanent to ta l.....................................
Permanent p a rtia l.................................
Temporary total ...................................
89.4
89.4
89.4
89.4
.28
.07
.95
19.92
25
6
85
1,781
N et Recoveries Under Existing System and Probable Awards
Under Proposed System
In order to compare the pecuniary value o f the existing modified em
ployers’ liability system with that of the proposed workmen’s compensa
tion system, it was necessary to ascertain for each case ( 1) the net
amount actually received by the seaman, or his dependents in case o f
his death, and ( 2 ) the amount the beneficiary would have received under
the proposed system.
NET AMOUNTS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY SEAMEN, OR THEIR DEPENDENTS
On Interdepartmental Committee Form No. 1, shipowners were re
quested to report for each disability case the amount o f the settlement
reached with the seaman, or his dependents, in the follow ing detail:
(a ) W ages to the end o f the voyage, (b ) maintenance and cure, ( c ) in
demnity, ( d ) other costs, and (e ) the total amount. In many cases ship
owners reported, only the total amounts paid. In other cases they failed
to report the amounts paid altogether. For the purpose o f comparing the
existing system with the proposed system the latter group had to be set
aside. Those reports in which only the total settlements were shown were
edited in accordance with the suggestion given by the shipowners to the
Interdepartmental Committee, that in each case the wages paid and the
maintenance allowances payable could be computed on the basis o f
the data contained in the case report on dates the disability occurred, the
voyage ended, between which the seaman was hospitalized, and on which
he was declared fit for duty. Following this procedure, it was therefore
assumed that (a) any amount in excess o f wages would consist o f main
tenance allowances, indemnity, and other costs; and ( b ) any amount in
excess o f wages plus maintenance and other costs would constitute the
amount o f the indemnity.
A s already indicated, each case report showed whether o r not an attor
ney was used by the merchant seaman, or his dependents, to negotiate
the settlement. The shipowners were further requested to report the
names and addresses o f such attorneys. The attorneys involved were
requested by the Interdepartmental Committee to submit data relative to
the amounts o f the fees and other costs charged with respect to each case
handled. F or a large number o f these cases, it was therefore possible to
obtain the actual attorneys’ fees and other legal costs. For the cases for
which such information was not available, estimates o f attorneys’ fees
85
and other legal costs were made by applying to the gross settlements, in
each case, the appropriate average attorney fee and other legal costs devel
oped from an analysis o f such costs for the 373 cases reported by the
attorneys. The proportion that average attorney fees and other legal costs
formed o f gross settlements in the 373 reported cases fo llo w s:
Gross settlements o f —
100 and under
101-$300 . . . .
301-$500 . . . .
501—$1,000 ..
l,001-$2,000 .
2,001^3,000 .
i3,001-$5,000 .
5,001-$10,000
)ver $10,000 .
1
Average attorney fees and
other costs (percent of
gross settlement')
37
37
39
36
35
37
35
33
20
PROBABLE AWARDS UNDER THE PROPOSED W ORKM EN’ S
COMPENSATION SYSTEM
For each case report (Interdepartmental Committee Form N o. 1 on
which the amount o f settlement was reported), the probable award was
evaluated in accordance with the benefit formula o f the proposed sys
tem 5 in the following detail: (1 ) W ages to the end o f the voyage;
( 2 ) workmen’s compensation for (a ) the hospitalization period, ( b ) the
out-patient and convalescent period for which maintenance allowances
were payable under the existing system, and ( c ) for permanent physical
impairments and fatalities; and (3 ) other costs.
Wages to the End of the Voyage
This amount was computed as the product o f the monthly basic wage
rate reported, and the period from the date disability began to the date
the voyage for*which the seaman was engaged was terminated.
Compensation for the Hospitalization Period
Before estimating this amount, it was necessary to establish the benefit
rate. This rate was established in accordance with the recommendation o f
the Interdepartmental Committee as follow s:
Basis fo r benefit rate,— The interdepartmental Committee recommended
that the benefits be “ computed on a full-time wage base together with the
value o f subsistence and lodging and remuneration fo r overtime and
bonuses.” The basis fo r the benefit rate was computed, therefore, by
dividing the total cash amount reported as earned during the period o f
employment immediately preceding the disability by the duration o f that
period, in months. T o this amount was added the monthly value o f sub
sistence and lodging established fo r the purpose o f taxation under the
Social Security A ct as $48 for licensed officers and supervisory personnel,
and $36 for all other members o f the crew.
Benefit rates,— The Interdepartmental Committee recommended that
the benefit rates be “ at least equal to those provided under the Long
shoremen’s and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, but without limita
tion o f the total benefits payable for death or disability” and that the
benefits “ during period o f out-patient treatment and convalescence” be
“ not less than the maintenance to which the injured seaman is entitled
during a period o f temporary disability.” 5 This benefit formula was used
As recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee op. cit. (p. 8).
86
for the hospitalization period as well as for the out-patient and con
valescence period.
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct speci
fies that the benefit during disability shall be 66% percent (section 8 )
o f the average weekly wages, but not less than $ 8, nor more than $25
per week (section 6 ). In this study, the benefit rate used was 66% per
cent o f the monthly wage as computed above. The Interdepartmental
Committee recommended that the benefit rate shall be not less than the
maintenance allowance paid under the existing system. In 1938, these
were usually from $4 to $4.50 per day for licensed and supervisory per
sonnel, and from $2 to $2.50 per day for other personnel. The minimum
benefit rate used in this study, therefore, was $4 per day for licensed and
supervisory personnel and $2 per day for other personnel; the maximum
benefit rate used was $4 per day.
The compensation was calculated at the above rate, without waiting
period, fo r that part o f the hospitalization period following the period
for which full wages were paid.
Compensation for Out-Patient and Convalescence Period
For this period the same benefit rate as that applied to the hospitaliza
tion period was used. Compensation was computed for the entire period
reported, without waiting period, except that if the period to the end o f
the voyage extended into the out-patient and convalescence period, the
benefit was computed for the period beginning after the end o f the voyage.
C o m p e n s a tio n f o r P e r m a n e n t P h y sic a l Im p a ir m e n ts
The benefits for permanent physical impairments were also computed
at the same rate as for the hospitalization, and out-patient and convales
cence periods. In accordance with the provisions o f the Longshoremen’s
and H arbor W orkers’ Compensation A ct, as modified by the recom
mendations o f the Interdepartmental Committee, the benefit for perma
nent total disability was computed for the full life expectancy o f the
disabled seaman, based on his age as reported on Interdepartmental Com
mittee Form No. 1 and a table o f life expectancy o f disabled persons
prepared by the U . S. Employees’ Compensation Commission. The
present-day value o f such benefit was calculated by discounting it at the
rate o f 4 percent per annum.
F or permanent partial disability, the benefit was computed for the num
ber o f benefit weeks specified in the Longshoremen’s and H arbor W o rk
ers’ Compensation A ct for the particular disablement (section 8 ( c ) ) .
A fter adjusting for mortality experience the present-day value o f such
benefit was calculated by applying the discount rate o f 4 percent per
annum.
Compensation for Death
The benefits payable to surviving dependents o f the deceased were
calculated at the rates specified in the Longshoremen’ s and H arbor W ork
ers’ Compensation A ct (section 9 ) , except that the amounts stated therein
as the maximum and minimum weekly wages to be used in computing
the benefits were raised from $37.50 to $42 and from $12 to $21, re
spectively. In deciding upon these figures, it was recalled that the act
provides that the maximum and minimum weekly disability benefits shall
be $25 and $ 8 , respectively, and that the benefit rate shall be 66^3 per
87
cent o f the individual’s weekly wage. These maximum and minimum
benefits are therefore equivalent to 66% percent o f the maximum and
minimum wages assumed in the act. The maximum and minimum weekly
benefits assumed in the hypothetical workmen’s compensation law and
used in the present study are $28 and $14, respectively. These amounts
represent 6 6% percent o f the $42 and $21 stipulated above as the maxi
mum and minimum wages assumed for the purpose o f calculating the
death benefits.
Similar to benefits for permanent physical impairments, the total bene
fit was derived by multiplying the monthly benefit by the life expectancy
o f the dependent. The life expectancy was determined by referring to the
American Experience Mortality Table. N o correction was made for the
remarriage rate o f widows. T o arrive at the present-day value o f the death
benefit, the total amount was discounted at the rate o f 4 percent per
annum.
In fatal cases in which a period o f disability preceded the death, such
disability period was considered to be temporary total disability, and
benefits were computed accordingly. The dependents’ benefits were
allowed in addition.
Other Costs
The amount allowed fo r “ other costs” was the identical amount re
ported in Interdepartmental Committee Form No. 1, except that for
death cases, when no amount was reported for funeral expenses o r when
the amount reported was less than $200, $200 was allowed.
Total Benefits
For disability cases, the total benefits finally allowed were the sums o f
(1 ) wages to the end o f the voyage; (2 ) the compensation fo r (a) hos
pitalization, ( b ) out-patient and convalescence periods, and ( c ) for per
manent physical impairments; and (3 ) other costs.
For death benefits, the total benefits allowed were the sums o f (1 ) the
disability benefits, (2 ) the dependents’ benefits, and (3 ) other costs.
In accordance with the recommendations o f the Interdepartmental
Committee, no limitation was placed upon the totals o f these benefits.
COMPARISON
F or each case reported comparisons were made between each settle
ment item and each corresponding compensation item, as well as between
the total net settlement and the total probable award.
Appendix 2.— Detailed Tables
The detailed tables in this section are based on the shipowners’ reports
o f seamen’s occupational injuries and diseases to the Interdepartmental
Committee to Study W orkm en’s Compensation for Seamen,
T able A .— Percentage Distribution of Reported Seamen’s Temporary Total
Disability Cases, by Duration, 19381
Injuries
All cases1
Diseases
Duration
Percent '1 Cumu Percent
lative
of total
of total
percent
Cumu
lative
percent
Percent
of total
Cumu
lative
percent
Under 4 d a y s......................................
4 and less tnan 7 d a y s......................
7 and less than 14 d a y s....................
14 and less than 30 d a y s..................
1.9
2.7
11.9
28.7
1.9
4.6
16.5
45.2
2.1
2.4
11.9
27.9
2.1
4.5
16.4
44.3
1.6
3.2
11.8
30.5
1.6
4.8
16.6
47.1
30 and less than 60 d ay s..................
60 and less than 90 d ay s..................
90 and less than 120 d a y s.............. .
120 and less than 150 d ay s..............
30.1
13.6
5.0
2.3
75.3
88.9
93.9
96.2
29.5
15.2
5.1
2.4
73.8
89.0
94.1
96.5
31.6
10.3
4.7
2.2
78.7
89.0
93.7
95.9
..........
..........
..........
..........
1.1
.6
.4
.3
97.3
97.9
98.3
98.6
1.1
.5
.4
.2
97.6
98.1
98.5
98.7
1.0
.7
.4
.5
96.9
97.6
98.0
98.5
270 and less than 300 days ..........
300 and less than 330 days ............
330 and less than 365 days ..........
1 year and over ................................
.2
.2
.1
.9
98.8
99.0
99.1
100.0
.2
*0
(2)
.9
98.9
99.1
99.1
100.0
.1
.2
.2
1.0
98.6
98.8
99.0
100.0
Total ...................................... .
100.0
150
180
210
240
and
and
and
and
less
less
less
less
than
than
than
than
180
210
240
270
days
days
days
days
100.0
100.0
1 Includes 5,121 cases— 3,443 injuries, and 1,678 diseases— occurring- in 1938.
2 Less than a tenth of 1 percent.
T able B .— Percentage Distribution of 3,690 Reported Injury Cases, by Nature
and Extent, 1938
Nature of injury
Amputations ......................
Burns and scalds............
Cuts, lacerations, punc
tures,
sprains,
and
bruises ..........................
Strains,
sprains,
and
bruises ........................
Fractures and dislocations
Hernia ..............................
Drowning ..........................
Concussions ......................
Not elsewhere classified
and unknown ..............
Total ....................
All
injury
cases
1.5
7.0
Permanent
Fatal
All
cases
Total
0
1.5
29.3
12.5
1.0
0
j
Partial
Temporary
total
29.9
1.1
0
7.0
14.4
5.9
11.9
0
12.4
14.7
48.5
13 9
10.3
.9
2.0
10.4
8.8
2.9
48.5
10.3
14.6
41.7
25.0
62.5
0
0
0
14.1
40.8
0
0
1.1
51.7
12.5
0
1.5
11.7
.5
0
.6
12.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
0
1.0
100.0 '
100.0
88
100.0
0
1.8
697369°— 46— 7
T able C.—Number o f Reported Disability Cases, by Occupational Group and Extent of Disability, 1938
Total
All groups ...........................................
Injury Disease
Total
Permanent partial
disability
Permanent total
disability
Fatalities
All cases
Occupational
group
Injury Disease
Total
Injury Disease
Total
Injury Disease
Temporary total
disability
Total
Injury Disease
6,009
4,131
1,878
64
69
19
9
10
191
178
13
5,665
3,880
1,785
Deck department................................. 2,563
Master ...........................................
93
Other licensed officer ...............
209
Petty officer .................................
286
Able seaman, etc.......................... 1,355
Ordinary seamen, etc..................
586
Miscellaneous ...............................
34
1,848
37
91
211
1,032
447
30
715
56
118
75
323
139
4
67~
6
15
8
25
12
1
44
4
9
4
15
11
1
23
2
6
4
10
1
0
14
2
1
1
8
2
0
8~~
0
0
1
6
1
0
6
2
1
0
2
1
0
104
7
5
12
61
18
1
95
5
5
12
56
17
0
9
2
0
0
5
1
1
2,378
78
188
265
1,261
554
32
1,701
28
77
194
955
418
29
677
50
111
71
306
136
3
Engine department ............................. 1,979
Chief engineer .............................
32
Other licensed engineer............
295
Petty officer.................................
624
Qualified members.....................
540
Wipers, etc....................................
416
72
Miscellaneous ........................ ..
1,303
17
157
407
380
298
44
676
15
138
217
160
118
28
34
2
9
14
7
2
0
12
0
3
4
4
1
0
22
2
6
10
3
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
39
0
6
21
6
5
1
36
0
6
19
5
5
1
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
1,904
30
280
587
527
409
71
1,255
17
148
384
371
292
43
649
13
132
203
156
117
28
Steward department ........................... 1,368
98
Chief steward .......... ♦.................
Other supervisory ratings . . . .
53
Skilled ratings ...........................
320
Messman. waiter, etc..................
693
Other steward ........ ....................
204
927
55
34
213
483
142
441
43
19
107
210
62
30
4
3
8
13
2
8
0
0
5
2
1
22
4
3
3
11
1
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
43
3
1
12
18
9
42
3
1
11
18
9
1
0
0
1
0
0
1,292
90
49
299
661
193
876
51
33
197
463
132
416
39
16
102
198
61
134
Pursers and clerk ...............................
9
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
6
Radio operator.....................................
27
13
14
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
13
12
Surgeon .................................................
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
Fisherman .............................................
30
18
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
29
17
12
Other .....................................................
31
19
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
4
0
26
15
11
90
T able D .—Percentage Distribution o f Reported Seamen’s Disability Cases,
by Period and by Trade of Vessels, 1938
Number
of
cases
Trade
Percent of cases, by periods1*
All
periods
To end
of
voyage
Hospital*
ization
Out-patient
and
convalescence
All trades ............................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ..............
5,458
3,690
1,768
100.0
100.0
100.0
64.5
66.0
61.4
33.4
27.6
45.7
82.3
85.9
74.7
Overseas foreign ................
Injury ca?es ..............
Disease cases ..............
1,210
801
409
100.0
100.0
100.0
81.6
81.7
81.4
30.1
26.4
37.7
79.0
87.7
62.1
Intercoastal ..........................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ..............
482
330
152
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.5
85.8
88.1
23.2
22.4
24.3
54.2
63.3
34.2
Coastwise ............................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ..............
2,579
1,767
812
100.0
100.0
100.0
65.9
67.2
62.9
34.8
27.8
50.1
86.7
88.5
82.8
Nearby foreign ..................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ..............
405
299
106
100.0
100 0
100.0
76.5
76.6
76.4
35.5
22.1
52.8
90.4
93.6
81.1
Great Lakes ........................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ..............
189
170
19
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.6
21.2
15.8
34.9
32.3
57.9
81.0
83.5
57.9
Inland ....................................
Injury cases ..............
Disease cases ............
593
323
270
100.0
100 0
100.0
12.0
14.2
9.3
40.6
31.0
32.2
87.7
84.5
91.5
1 The percentage of cases shown for each period are not additive, because seamen may be
disabled for one or more of the above periods.
T able E.—Average Duration of Reported Seamen’s Disability Cases, by Period of
Disability and by Extent of Disability, 1938
All periods1
Extent of
disability
Hospitali
zation
Out-patient
and convalescence
Average
Number Average
Number Average
Number Average
Number
dura
dura
dura
dura
of
of
of
of
tion
tion
tion
tion
cases
cases
cases
cases
days
days
days
days
All extents ............
Injury cases .
Disease cases
5,458
3,690
1,768
48.6
48.4
49.7
Fatal ......................
Injury cases .
Disease cases
130
63
67
33.4
12.0
53.6
Permanent total ..
Injury cases .
Disease cases
18
8
10
Permanent partial .
Injury cases .
Disease cases
Temporary total ..
Injury cases .
Disease cases
To end of
voyage
3,523
2,437
1,086
16.2
15.1
18.6
1,826
1,018
808
33.0
31.5
34.9
4,492
3,171
1,321
33.2
34.5
29.9
34~
4
30
12.5
12.5
12.5
28
8
20
90.4
75.5
96.4
16
4
12
86.8
24.8
107.5
178.1
104.6
236.8
12
5
7
43.8
37.4
48.3
11
5
6
145.5
36.4
236.5
9
3
6
119.9
156.0
101.8
189
176
13
119.7
111.6
229.6
140
128
12
21.2
21.4
19.8
94
84
10
70.4
68.5
85.9
154
143
11
84.7
78.0
171.6
5,121
3,443
1,678
46.1
45.7
47.0
3,337
2,300
1,037
15.9
14.8
18.6
1,693
921
772
29.2
27.7
31.0
4,313
3,021«
1,292
30.9
32.4
27.6
1 The number of cases shown for each period are not additive, because seamen may be
disabled for one or more periods.
91
T able F.—Average Duration of Reported Seamen's Disability Cases, by Period of
Disability and by Trade o f Vessel, 1938
All periods1
Trade
Number
of
cases
Hospitali
zation
To end of
voyage
Out-patient
and convalescence
Average
Average
Average
dura Number
dura Number
dura
of
of
tion
tion
tion
cases
cases
days
days
days
Number
of
cases
Average
dura
tion
days
All trades ..............
Injury cases .
Disease cases
5,458
3,690
1,768
48.8
48.4
49.7
2,523
2,437
1,086
16.2
15.1
18.6
1,826
1,018
808
33.0
31.5
34.9
4,492
3,171
1,321
33.2
34.5
29.9
Coastwise ..............
Injury cases .
Disease cases
2,579
1,767
812
46.2
45.3
48.0
1,699
1,188
511
9.4
9.2
9.9
898
489
409
34.2
33.3
35.2
2,236
1,564
672
32.3
33.7
29.1
Intercoastal ............
Injury cases .
Disease cases
482
330
152
48.2
52.1
39.8
417
283
134
26.8
27.4
25.6
111
74
37
27.9
24.2
35.1
261
209
52
34.3
36.5
25.4
Nearby foreign . . .
Injury cases .
Disease cases
405
299
106
310
229
81
10.0
9.1
12.6
144
88
56
32.0
34.6
28.0
366
280
86
25.0
26.3
20.6
Overseas foreign ..
Injury cases .
Disease cases
1,210
801
409
41.6
41.8
41.1
62.1
60.2
65.9
987
655
332
26.2
23.7
31.2
366
212
154
35.1
29.5
42.8
956
703
253
38.1
37.6
39.6
Great Lakes ..........
Injury cases .
Disease cases
189
170
19
45.8
47.4
31.0
39
36
3
4.9
4.8
5,7
66
55
11
31.6
34.5
17.1
153
142
11
41.7
42.2
34.9
Inland......................
Injury cases .
Disease cases
593
323
270
39.3
38.4
40.3
71
46
25
9.5
7.9
12.3
241
100
141
28.7
27.7
29.3
520
273
247
30.2
33.9
26.1
1 The number of cases shown for each period are not additive, because seamen may be
disabled for one or more of the above periods.
T able G.—Distribution o f Reported Seamen's Disability Cases, by Payment Lag
and Method of Settlement
[Cases occurring in 1938]
Cases settled directly with
seamen
All cases
Payment lag
Percent—
Number
Of total
Less than 3 months ........................
3 and less than 6 months..................
6 *and less than 9 months..................
9 and less than 12 months................
12 and less than 18 months ............
18 and less than 24 months ............
24 and less than 36 months ............
Unknown duration..............................
Pending ........ ..................... .................
Total ........................................
3,996
638
206
145
122
46
27
167
29
74.3
11^
378
2.7
2.3
0.7
.0.7
3.1
0.5
5,377
100.0
Percent—
Cumu
lative
Number
74.3
86.2
90.0
92.7
95.0
95.7
96.4
99.5
100.0
3,699
436
89
31
22
13
Of total
83.1
9.8
2.0
.7
Cumu
lative
6
.3
.1
3.4
0.1
83.1
93.9
95.9
95.6
96.1
96.4
96.5
99.9
100.0
4,451
100.0
i •••••
4
151
.5
Casts sealed through attorney—
Without court action
Payment lag
Number
Less than 3 months ..........................
3 and less than 6 months.............. ...
6 and less than 9 months..................
9 and less than 12 months................
12 and less than 18 months ............
18 and less than 24 months ............
24 and less than 36 months ............
Unknown duration..............................
Pending
Total ........................................
With court action
Percent—
281
183
103
97
80
24
17
11
Of total
Cumu
lative
35.2
23.1
12.9
12.2
10.0
3.0
2.2
1.4
35.2
58.3
71.2
83.4
93.4
96.4
98.6
100.0
0
796
100.0
Percent—
Number
Of total
Cumu
lative
16
19
14
18
20
9
6
5
23
12.3
14.6
10.8
13.8
15.4
6.9
4.6
3.9
17.7
12.3
26.9
37.7
51.5
66.9
73.8
78.4
82.3
100.0
130
100.0
T able H .— Distribution of Reported Seamen’s Disability Cases, by Amount o f Recovery
{Cases closed or pending in
All cases
Amount
of
net recovery
Percent—
Total .........................
126
62
1,188
1,495
891
585
355
212
250
159
171
83
45
26
30
30
56
24
8
16
5,812
Percent—
Percent—
Number
Of total
$10—$49
$50-$99 .................................
$100-$149 .............................
$150-$199 .............................
$200-$249 .............................;
$250-$299 .............................
$300-$399 .............................
$400-$499 .............................
$500-$749 ..............................
$750-$999 .............................
$1,000-$1,249 ....................
$1,250-$1,499 ............ ..
$1,500-$1,999 .................... .
$2,000 $2,499 ....................
$2,500-$4,999 ....................
$5,000-$7,499 ....................
$7,500 $9,999 ......................
$10,000 and o v e r................
Disease cases
Injury cases
Number
None .....................................
1938]
2.2
1.0
20.5
25.7
15.3
10.1
6.1
3.6
4.3
2.8
2.9
1.5
.7
.5
.5
.5
1.0
.4
.1
.3
100.0
Cumulative
2.2
3.2
23.7
49.4
64.7
74.8
80.9
84.5
88.8
91.6
94.5
96.0
96.7
97.2
97.7
98.2
99.2
99.6
99.7
100.0
Number
Of total
Cumulative
67
44
704
977
629
431
253
162
178
127
127
59
36
20
24
24
47
24
8
16
1.7
1.1
17.8
24.7
15.9
10.9
6.4
4.1
4.5
3.2
3.2
1.5
.9
.5
.6
.6
1.2
.6
.2
.4
1.7
2.8
20.6
45.3
61.2
72.1
78.5
82.6
87.1
90.3
93.5
95.0
95.9
96.4
97.0
97.6
98.8
99.4
99.6
100.0
3,957
100.0
Of total
59
18
484
518
262
154
102
50
72
32
44
24
9
6
6
6
9
0
0
3.2
1.0
26.1
27.9
14.1
8.3
5.5
2.7
3.9
1.7
2.4
1.3
.5
.3
.3
.3
.5
0
1,855
100.0
Cumulative
3.2
4.2
30.3
58.2
72.3
80.6
86.1
83.8
92.7
94.4
96.8
98.1
98.6
98.9
99.2
99.5
100.0
T able I .— Average Gross and N et Settlements in Reported Seamen1s Disability Cases Occurring in 1938, b y Extent and M ethod of Settlement
Cases settled through attorney
Cases settled directly
with seaman
All cases
Carried into court
Negotiated
Extent of disability
Average per case
Number
Number
Average
per case
Average per case
Average per case
Number
Number
☆ u . S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O FFICE. 5 0 4 6 —6 9 7 3 6 9
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
All extents ........................................
Injury cases .............................
Disease cases ............................
5,354
3,631
1,723
$316.06
383.69
173.53
$267.92
319.37
158.93
4,451
2,907
1,544
$197.27
224.44
146.10
796
633
163
$801.18
917.62
348.99
$531.84
609.67
229.60
107
91
16
$1,648.64
1,756.82
1,033.31
$1,234.47
1,332.50
676.88
Fatal ...................................................
Injury cases .............................
Disease cases ............................
112
57
55
2,067.67
3,739.56
334.98
1,761.09
3,160.82
310.45
87
38
49
1,414.13
2,867.45
287.06
24
18
6
4,439.58
5,677.33
726.33
3,040.04
3,886.22
501.50
1
1
0
2,000.00
2,000.00
0
1,252.00
1,252.00
0
Permanent total ..............................
Injury cases .............................
Disease cases ............................
18
8
10
5,061.00
7,987.75
2,728.60
3,645.72
5,311.88
2,212.80
6
1
5
1,829.16
300.00
2,135.00
10
6
4
6,476.10
9,183.67
2,364.75
4,311.70
6,040.83
1,718.00
2
1
1
7,726.00
8,500.00
6,952.00
5,265.50
5,950.00
4,581.00
Permanent partial ............................
Injury cases .............................
Disease cases ............................
188
176
12
2,376.49
2,459.92
1,152.92
1,898.09
1,967.54
879.42
109
101
8
1,219.78
1,273.07
547.00
62
59
3
3,579.61
3,658 47
2,028.67
2,365.18
2,418.14
1,323.67
17
16
1
5,405.23
5,532.25
3,373.00
3,955.47
4,689.81
2,206.00
Temporary total ...............................
Injury cases .............................
Disease cases ...........................
5,036
3,390
1,646
183.21
201.53
145.47
161.79
174.24
136.13
4,249
2,746
1,482
143.81
149.84
132.56
700
550
150
349.27
377.65
245.22
229.46
249.18
157.15
87
73
14
770.84
833.63
443.43
494.97
534.51
288.79
Gross
Net
@FedFRASER