Seattle Maritime Law Blog : Seattle Maritime Lawyers & Attorneys : Mikkelborg Broz Law Firm : Collision and Salvage, Fisheries, Jones Act : Seattle, Washington

A King County jury recently awarded an injured seaman $1.5 million in damages, which included $1.2 million in punitive damages against his employer, Icicle Seafoods of Seattle.  The plaintiff Dana Clausen argued, and the jury found, that Icicle had failed to pay for necessary treatment and had withheld a medical report substantiating the need for this treatment.  The jury found that the company "callously" refused to pay for this medical care, which justified a punitive damages award.

This case is notable in that it  comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend (previously discussed on the Seattle Maritime Blog), which held that that a seaman can recover punitive damages on a maritime maintenance and cure case if there is a showing of “willful and wanton” conduct by the defendant.

The jury's finding in this case appears to follow the logic of Atlantic Townsend in justifying punitive damages in a maritime injury claim, but it will be interesting to see whether Icicle will challenge this award or seek further clarification of this punitive damages rule from the appellate courts.

A brief story about this verdict was recently published by the Seattle Times.

Lafcadio Darling specializes in maritime and commercial litigation, representing a wide variety of business and consumer clients. In addition to being licensed in Washington and California, Lafcadio also holds an LL.M. from University College London and is a licensed solicitor in England & Wales

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 2009 WL 1789469 (U.S. June 25, 2009) held that a seaman can recover punitive damages on a maritime maintenance and cure case if there is a showing of “willful and wanton” conduct.

In July 2005, Edgar Townsend was allegedly injured while working aboard the tug boat Thomas. His employer, Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. sought declaratory judgment in a federal district court to determine its obligations toward him under maritime law. Mr. Townsend counterclaimed, alleging in part that Atlantic Sounding’s arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure for his injuries justified punitive damages. Atlantic Sounding moved to dismiss and, when the motion was denied, appealed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court. The court held it was bound by its prior decision in Hines v. J.A. LaPorte, Inc. There, it concluded a seaman may recover punitive damages when an employer arbitrarily and willfully refuses to pay maintenance and cure for his injuries. It reasoned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. did not apply. In that case, the Court held that recovery for "non-pecuniary loss in the wrongful death of a seaman was not available under general maritime law". The court of appeals reasoned that Miles was not "clearly on point" to the facts in Mr. Townsend's case.

On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, explaining that: "Because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because nothing in the Jones Act altered this understanding, such damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation should remain available in the appropriate case as a matter of general maritime law.” The Court also observed that “limiting recovery for maintenance and cure to whatever is permitted by the Jones Act would give greater pre-emptive effect to the Act than is required by its text, Miles [v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990)], or any of this Court's other decisions interpreting the statute."

In one sense, this case is not controversial since it only purports to maintain the existing rule for maritime cases.  However, the Supreme Court's significant reduction in punitive damages in the recent EXXON VALDEZ case suggested that the current Court disfavors punitive damages, particularly in maritime cases.  The Atlantic Sounding decision is interesting because shows that, despite its ruling in the EXXON case, the Court remains willing to recognize punitive damages in maritime cases.

A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-214.pdf
 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the first time in U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court Supreme Court has approved an award of punitive damages under maritime law.

The Supreme Court has established that as a general rule, punitive damages in general maritime law cases should be in the range of 0.65:1, with a maximum of 1:1. What will the impact be on other cases involving punitive damages and statutory causes of action under maritime law?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court was divided on the important issue of whether under maritime law, a ship owner may be vicariously liable for the acts of a managerial employee such as a vessel’s master. The Supreme Court’s opinion leaves the decision of the Ninth Circuit that there is such liability intact, but does not overrule contrary decisions in other circuits.

The Supreme Court's opinion may be read in full at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks