We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In January 2018, the Ninth Circuit in Batterton v.
Dutra Group affirmed the lower court’s decision ruling
that punitive damages are awardable to seamen in unseaworthiness
actions. The Court relied on its 1987 decision in Evich v.
Morris, where it “squarely held that ‘[p]unitive
damages are available under general maritime law for claims of
unseaworthiness’” and found that the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp, did
not overrule Evich. Rather, the Ninth Circuit opined that
Miles held that loss of society damages are unavailable in
a general maritime action for a seaman’s wrongful death and
lost future earnings are unavailable in a general maritime survival
action. It found that “Miles did not address
punitive damages.”
The Ninth Circuit went on to say that a subsequent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend
implicitly found that Miles does not limit the
availability of punitive damages in unseaworthiness claims given
that Townsend allowed punitive damages for maintenance and
cure, and there is “no persuasive reason to distinguish
maintenance and cure actions from unseaworthiness actions with
respect to awardable damages.”
Finally, the Batterton Court noted that the statutory
limitations on survivors’ damages to “pecuniary
loss,” such as those found in the Death on the High Seas Act
or the Jones Act, had “no application to general maritime
claims by living seamen for their injuries.”
The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it has split with the
relatively recent McBride v. Estis Well Service (2014)
from the Fifth Circuit, which held that “‘punitive
damages are non-pecuniary losses and therefore may not be recovered
under the Jones Act or under the general maritime law’”
including in unseaworthiness claims. The Batterton Court
highlighted that McBride was a sharply divided decision
and found the dissenting opinions to be more persuasive. For
example, the Ninth Circuit found that the Fifth Circuit interpreted
Miles broadly and Townsend narrowly, but that
interpretation ignores Miles’ statement that the
Jones Act “does not disturb seamen’s general maritime
claims for injuries resulting from unseaworthiness.”
Given the split between two major admiralty circuits, the
maritime community is anxiously waiting to see whether the Supreme
Court takes up the issue of punitive damages in unseaworthiness
actions. Should the Batterson decision remain in
place in the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff’s options for damages
will greatly expand which will raise plaintiff’s
demands. This may force settlement as well, as plaintiffs will have
more leverage against exposed insureds given that punitive damage
are generally not covered. Maritime lawyers will need to
change how they assess their cases for trial, as juries will now
often be instructed on punitive damages whenever plaintiffs pursue
a claim under general maritime law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Lookout provides readers with a snapshot of some important developments in maritime law and the maritime industry that are being monitored by the Admiralty, Maritime & Energy Litigation Practice at Lewis Brisbois.
During the Transportation Research Board's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao announced the initiation of two long-awaited rulemakings related to the operation of small UAS:
In Bunker Holdings Ltd. v. Yang Ming Liberia Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified what it means to order necessaries "on the order of the owner of a person ...
