Working aboard a yacht presents unique challenges and risks that most land-based employees never encounter. Crew members are often expected to perform physically demanding tasks, respond to unexpected situations, and follow the directions of vessel owners or captains in environments where accidents can happen quickly. When an injury occurs, maritime law provides protections that differ significantly from traditional workers’ compensation systems. One of the most important of these protections is the doctrine of maintenance and cure. Unfortunately, some employers delay, deny, or ignore these legal obligations, forcing injured seamen to fight for the benefits they are entitled to receive.
What Is Maintenance and Cure?
Maintenance and cure is one of the oldest legal protections in maritime law. It requires a vessel owner or maritime employer to provide certain benefits to a seaman who becomes injured or ill while in the service of a vessel, regardless of who was at fault for the incident.
Maintenance generally refers to the injured seaman’s reasonable daily living expenses while recovering. Cure refers to necessary medical treatment until the individual reaches what is legally known as maximum medical improvement. Maximum medical improvement does not necessarily mean a seaman has fully recovered. Rather, it refers to the point at which additional medical treatment is not expected to produce significant improvement.
These benefits are intended to ensure that injured crew members receive medical care and financial support while they recover from their injuries.
These Benefits Are Often Owed Even Without Negligence
Unlike many personal injury claims, maintenance and cure does not require an injured crew member to prove that an employer acted negligently. If the injury occurred while the seaman was serving the vessel, the obligation to provide maintenance and cure often exists even when no one intentionally caused the accident.
This makes maintenance and cure one of the strongest protections available under maritime law. However, disputes frequently arise when employers question the severity of an injury, delay payments, or refuse to provide benefits altogether.
When an Employer Wrongfully Refuses to Pay
Federal maritime law takes these obligations seriously. If an employer willfully and unreasonably refuses to provide maintenance and cure without a legitimate basis, additional damages may become available beyond the underlying benefits.
Courts have recognized that injured seamen should not be forced to bear the financial burden of medical treatment simply because an employer chooses to ignore its legal responsibilities. In appropriate cases, employers who act arbitrarily or in bad faith may face significant financial consequences.
A Real-World Example
BRILL & RINALDI, The Law Firm recently represented an injured yacht crew member whose case demonstrates why these protections exist.
The client, a chef and stewardess aboard a motor yacht, suffered serious injuries while carrying out instructions given by the vessel owner. According to the lawsuit, she was directed to assist the owner’s intoxicated guest back to the yacht when both individuals fell, causing significant injuries to her arm and shoulder.
The lawsuit further alleged that the employers knew of prior dangerous incidents involving the same individual yet continued placing crew members in foreseeable danger. It also alleged that the employers failed to provide the maintenance and cure required under maritime law after the injury occurred.
After the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit filed in Broward County Circuit Court, a jury awarded more than $2.7 million in damages. When the judgment remained unpaid, the firm pursued additional remedies in federal court by filing an in rem action against the vessel itself, resulting in the arrest of the yacht by the United States Marshals Service. Following litigation in multiple courts, the matter was ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement.
Maritime Cases Often Involve Multiple Courts
Unlike most personal injury claims, maritime litigation may involve both state and federal courts depending on the nature of the claims and the remedies being pursued.
Some claims are filed directly against vessel owners, while others involve legal actions against the vessel itself under federal admiralty law. These unique procedures require a thorough understanding of maritime statutes, federal court practice, and long-established principles of admiralty law.
Because of these complexities, maritime injury cases often differ substantially from traditional workplace injury claims.
Acting Quickly Can Protect Important Rights
Maritime cases often involve employment records, vessel logs, maintenance records, surveillance footage, witness testimony, and medical documentation that should be preserved as early as possible. Delays can make important evidence more difficult to obtain and may affect a crew member’s ability to fully protect their legal rights.
Speaking with an attorney familiar with maritime law soon after an injury can help ensure that potential claims are properly evaluated and that employers meet their legal obligations.
Protecting the Rights of Injured Seamen
Yacht crew members and other maritime workers perform demanding jobs that keep the marine industry operating safely and efficiently. When injuries occur, federal maritime law provides important protections, including maintenance and cure, that are designed to support injured seamen during their recovery.
If you have been injured while working aboard a yacht or other vessel and believe your employer has failed to meet its obligations under maritime law, the attorneys at BRILL & RINALDI, The Law Firm can help you understand your legal rights. We have experience handling complex maritime injury litigation involving vessel owners, maintenance and cure claims, and Jones Act cases.
Schedule a consultation today by calling (954) 876-4344 or filling out the online form. We have offices in Weston, Coral Gables, and Daytona Beach.
Disclaimer: The information above is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and results are not guaranteed.