## Facts

- Thomas E. Baker worked intermittently for Ocean Systems, Inc. as a marine diver-tender, performing offshore work aboard vessels and winter work in Ocean’s onshore shop in Morgan City, Louisiana.
- Ocean admitted Baker worked from July 28, 1968 through August 11, 1968, including duties aboard the WESTERN EXPLORER, in connection with a Gulf of Mexico diving contract.
- The offshore job ended on August 11, 1968, and Baker was paid through that date.
- After the job ended, Baker could choose to report for work at Ocean’s Morgan City shop, but he was not required to do so.
- Baker informed Ocean he would be available if another offshore job arose, but he had no contractual obligation to report; he was paid only for work performed and was free to pursue other work when not working.
- On August 12, 1968, while off duty in a shore-side lounge near Morgan City, Baker was struck on the head with a pool cue in an unprovoked assault unrelated to vessel operations.
- Baker incurred $7,094.74 in medical expenses, was hospitalized 43 days, and reached maximum cure after an additional 218 days.
- Baker sued in admiralty for maintenance and cure; the district court found he was a seaman but denied recovery because he was not in the service of any vessel at the time of injury.

## Issues

1. Whether Baker was “in the service of a vessel,” or otherwise answerable to a binding call of duty, when he was injured ashore the day after an offshore job ended, such that Ocean Systems owed maintenance and cure.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ocean Systems, denying maintenance and cure.
- The court accepted the district court’s finding that Baker qualified as a seaman, but held he was not in the service of any vessel at the time of the assault.
- The court concluded Baker had completed his tour of duty and was not under any enforceable obligation to report for work on August 12.

## Legal Principles

- A maritime employer’s duty to provide maintenance and cure applies only when the seaman is “in the service of the vessel,” including periods when the seaman remains answerable to duty under an active employment obligation.
- Seaman status does not alone establish entitlement to maintenance and cure; the injury must occur within the temporal and functional scope of service.
- “On call” availability without a binding duty to report is insufficient to show the seaman was in the service of a vessel when injured ashore after completion of the assigned job.
- Injuries in purely personal, shore-side settings after a tour ends are outside maintenance and cure when there is no continuing voyage, assignment, or duty status comparable to authorized shore leave during ongoing service.

## Conclusion

Because Baker’s offshore assignment had ended, he was paid through the completion date, and he was free to accept or refuse future work without any enforceable obligation to report, the Fifth Circuit held he was not in the service of a vessel when assaulted ashore and therefore was not entitled to maintenance and cure.


Baker v. Ocean Sys., Inc., 454 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1972)