## Facts

- The United States owned the vessel on which Eino Koistinen worked, and American Export Lines, Inc. operated the ship under an agency agreement with the United States.
- Koistinen was employed as a seaman on the vessel.
- While the ship was in port at Split (then Yugoslavia), Koistinen went ashore on authorized shore leave.
- During shore leave, Koistinen became intoxicated after drinking alcohol.
- Koistinen met a woman who was working as a prostitute and went with her to her room.
- A dispute arose over payment. During the dispute, the woman locked Koistinen in the room.
- The woman returned with a physically imposing man, and Koistinen believed he faced the threat of harm as part of a scheme to extort money from him.
- Koistinen attempted to get out by jumping from a window and suffered serious injury (including a broken leg), requiring hospitalization.
- American Export Lines paid Koistinen’s wages and hospital expenses but resisted paying maintenance during his recovery.
- Koistinen sued American Export Lines seeking maintenance.

## Issues

1. Whether a seaman who is injured during authorized shore leave, after becoming intoxicated and while trying to escape a prostitute’s room and an apparent extortion attempt, is still “in the service of the ship” and entitled to maintenance.
2. Whether the vessel’s operator can avoid liability for maintenance by claiming it operated the government-owned ship only as the United States’ agent.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Koistinen awarding maintenance.
- The court held that Koistinen’s injury occurred while he was still in the service of the ship during authorized shore leave and that his conduct did not bar maintenance.
- The court rejected American Export Lines’ defense that it was not responsible because it operated only as the United States’ agent, and held the operator liable for maintenance.

## Legal Principles

- A seaman on authorized shore leave generally remains in the service of the ship for purposes of maintenance and cure.
- Maintenance and cure is denied only in limited circumstances, such as wilful misbehavior or a deliberate act of serious misconduct by the seaman; ordinary shore-leave conduct does not meet that standard.
- Intoxication and seeking sexual companionship while on shore leave do not automatically forfeit maintenance; the inquiry is whether the injury resulted from disqualifying misconduct.
- When a private company operates and manages a vessel (including crewing and day-to-day operation), it may be treated as responsible for a seaman’s maintenance obligation even if the vessel is owned by the United States and operated under an agency agreement.

## Conclusion

Koistinen was entitled to maintenance because his shore-leave injury was treated as occurring in the service of the ship and was not caused by disqualifying misconduct, and American Export Lines could not avoid liability by pointing to its agency arrangement for a U.S.-owned vessel.


Koistinen v. American Export Lines, 194 Misc. 942, 83 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1948)