IN MAINTENANCE AND CURE SUIT, SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION OF 1936 DID NOT PROHIBIT DISTRICT COURT FROM ENFORCING CLAUSE DESIGNATING HONDURAS AS FORUM FOR DISPUTES BETWEEN SEAMAN AND EMPLOYER, BUT DISTRICT COURT HAD TO CONSIDER WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF
DILBERT IVAN CALIX-CHACON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL MARINE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17239
July 19, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employer sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which denied the employer's motion to dismiss appellee seaman's maintenance and cure suit. On public policy grounds, the district court refused to enforce a forum selection clause designating Honduras as the place for the settlement of any disputes between the parties.
OVERVIEW: The seaman, a Honduras native, became ill while working on the employer's vessel. The seaman underwent heart transplant surgery and sought maintenance and cure. The district court held that the forum selection clause was unenforceable under general maritime law and under the Shipowners' Liability Convention of 1936. The seaman was then awarded maintenance and cure after a trial. On appeal, the court held that the Convention, which merely codified general maritime law in the U.S., did not prohibit a federal district court from refusing to entertain maintenance and cure claims brought by foreign seamen in a United States court, particularly where the seaman's contract contained a clause designating a different forum. Instead, the district court needed to consider factors such as whether the selection clause was the product of fraud or overreaching; whether the seaman would for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; whether fundamental unfairness of the chosen law would deprive the seaman of a remedy; and whether enforcement of the clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for the district court to consider whether the forum selection clause was enforceable under the factors outlined. In making its determination, the district court was to consider, among other things, the available medical care in Honduras and whether a remedy was available to the seaman under Honduran law.
