## Facts

- Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc. owned the tanker S.T. OVERSEAS PROGRESS; Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. owned the passenger vessel S.S. CANBERRA.
- While crossing the mid-Atlantic, a 63-year-old seaman aboard OVERSEAS PROGRESS suffered severe chest pains consistent with a heart attack; the tanker had no doctor on board.
- After shipboard treatment and radio medical advice failed to improve the seaman’s condition, OVERSEAS PROGRESS broadcast a request for a nearby vessel with a doctor.
- CANBERRA, a faster vessel with full medical facilities, agreed to divert and meet the tanker.
- During communications, CANBERRA’s master stated that its owner would likely seek reimbursement for diversion-related expenses; the tanker’s master did not object.
- When the ships met, the tanker’s master signed a letter acknowledging that CANBERRA’s owners would look to Overseas for reimbursement of expenses arising from the diversion.
- CANBERRA took the seaman aboard, its doctor diagnosed a heart attack, and the vessel proceeded at high speed to New York for hospitalization; the seaman recovered.
- The diversion caused CANBERRA to steam additional distance and incur additional fuel and related costs; the delay to its passenger schedule was minor.
- P&O sought recovery of approximately $12,108.95 for additional fuel and other diversion expenses; Overseas paid the seaman’s medical expenses but refused to pay the diversion/fuel component.

## Issues

1. Whether a vessel owner that diverts to provide emergency medical assistance to a seaman aboard another vessel may recover reasonable diversion and fuel expenses from the assisted vessel’s owner.
2. Whether the traditional bar on compensation for “pure life salvage” prevents recovery when only life, not property, is saved.
3. Whether restitution/quasi-contract principles, informed by the shipowner’s maintenance-and-cure duty, permit reimbursement when the assisting vessel performs services the other owner was legally obligated to provide.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of diversion and fuel expenses.
- The court held that P&O was entitled to recover reasonable diversion-related expenses under equitable restitution principles.
- The court rejected the view that the claim was barred as “pure life salvage,” characterizing it as reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs rather than a salvage reward.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for P&O in the amount of $8,500.

## Legal Principles

- A shipowner’s duty of maintenance and cure requires securing necessary medical treatment for its seamen; when another vessel, at the shipowner’s request or with its acquiescence, provides needed medical assistance, the benefiting shipowner may be required to reimburse reasonable costs.
- Restitution/quasi-contract may require payment where one party knowingly accepts a service that discharges its own legal obligation, and retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust.
- The traditional rule denying a salvage award for “pure life salvage” does not preclude restitution for reasonable, specific expenses incurred to render requested medical aid, as distinct from a discretionary salvage bounty.
- Notice that reimbursement will be sought, and acknowledgment by the assisted vessel’s master, supports treating the assisting vessel as non-voluntary for restitution purposes and limiting recovery to reasonable expenses.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that when a vessel diverts in response to a request for emergency medical aid and thereby performs services tied to another shipowner’s maintenance-and-cure duty, equitable restitution permits recovery of reasonable diversion expenses, and the “pure life salvage” bar does not prevent reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs.


Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1977)