Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 22, 2018; Federal Appellate Court
The court examines the question of whether punitive damages can be awarded for claims of unseaworthiness in maritime law. The case, brought by Christopher Batterton, a deckhand who suffered injuries due to the unseaworthy condition of a vessel owned by the Dutra Group, is based solely on the pleadings, as the district court allowed a prayer for punitive damages to stand. The central issue is whether punitive damages are a permissible remedy for unseaworthiness claims, a matter on which district courts in the circuit are divided.
In the precedent case Evich v. Morris, it was determined that punitive damages are available under general maritime law for unseaworthiness claims, contrasting with the Jones Act where such damages are not permitted. Evich established that punitive damages require a showing of conduct reflecting 'reckless or callous disregard' for others' rights. Although Evich involved a wrongful death claim, the court sees no reason to limit its applicability solely to such cases.
The court must adhere to the ruling in Evich unless it contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., which pertains to damages in wrongful death and survival actions but does not explicitly address punitive damages for unseaworthiness. The recent ruling in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend reinforces the view that punitive damages remain available in general maritime actions, including unseaworthiness claims, suggesting that Miles does not restrict this avenue for recovery. Thus, the court tentatively concludes that punitive damages can be sought for unseaworthiness claims, pending further legal developments.
Townsend allows for a distinction between maintenance and cure claims and unseaworthiness claims, recognizing that these claims derive from different legal principles. However, it does not imply that punitive damages should be limited for general maritime unseaworthiness claims. The existing precedent set by Evich remains valid, affirming that punitive damages are available for unseaworthiness claims. Conversely, McBride v. Estis Well Service argues that punitive damages, considered non-pecuniary losses, cannot be recovered under the Jones Act or general maritime law, a view supported by previous rulings in Kopczynski v. The Jacqueline. The dissent in McBride emphasizes that Townsend establishes punitive damages as available under general maritime law, while noting that Miles dealt with loss of society damages, not punitive damages.
The Supreme Court's Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. decision overturned the historical prohibition against wrongful death claims in maritime law, reinforcing the notion of a shipowner's absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. This transformation has made unseaworthiness a primary avenue for seamen to recover for injuries or death. The limitations of the Death on the High Seas Act do not exclude wrongful death remedies under general maritime law. The Miles case, which involved a seaman's wrongful death, raised questions regarding recoverable damages, including loss of society and punitive damages, following a jury finding of negligence but a rejection of the unseaworthiness claim.
The Fifth Circuit reversed a prior ruling, determining that the ship was unseaworthy due to the violent behavior of a crewman. The court refused to limit the precedent set in Moragne, emphasizing that the Jones Act does not oppose recovering maritime law claims for unseaworthiness-related injuries or wrongful death. The issue of punitive damages was not addressed, focusing instead on loss of society and future earnings.
Dutra's argument hinged on the interpretation of damages, specifically the Death on the High Seas Act, which restricts wrongful death damages to pecuniary losses. The court stated that non-pecuniary losses, such as loss of society, are not recoverable in a general maritime action. Additionally, it noted that Lord Campbell’s Act, which informs various wrongful death statutes, has been consistently interpreted to allow recovery solely for pecuniary loss.
Consequently, the court concluded that the Jones Act limits recovery to pecuniary loss and disallows loss of society claims for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman. The court acknowledged that while punitive damages are categorized as pecuniary, they are not compensatory in nature and arise from a punitive context, distinct from compensatory damages for loss.
The court referenced previous cases, stating that loss of consortium damages are also unavailable to wives of injured mariners under the Jones Act or maritime law. It also clarified that neither the Jones Act nor general maritime law allows recovery for loss of society in wrongful death or injury cases involving seamen. The potential for expanding the interpretation of Miles to include punitive damages was effectively negated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend.
The shipowner in Townsend contended that the decision in Miles prohibited punitive damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. The Court clarified that punitive damages have historically been available in general maritime actions and determined that neither Miles nor the Jones Act eliminates this availability. It emphasized that unseaworthiness claims are rooted in general maritime law, predating the Jones Act. While Miles suggested that damages for unseaworthiness claims might be limited to those under the Jones Act for wrongful death, this interpretation was deemed overly broad. The Court noted that Miles specifically addressed loss of society and did not discuss punitive damages.
Furthermore, the Jones Act does not impede seamen's general maritime claims for unseaworthiness. The Court distinguished between claims for wrongful death, which are statutorily limited to pecuniary loss, and general maritime claims by living seamen, which are not subject to these restrictions. The Court found no valid reason to differentiate between maintenance and cure actions and unseaworthiness claims regarding damage awards because the purposes of punitive damages—punishment and deterrence—apply equally to both.
The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Dutra’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim, confirming that punitive damages are allowable in general maritime unseaworthiness actions. Under the Miller v. Gammie standard, Miles does not fundamentally conflict with Evich, which remains valid law. The Townsend Court would reach the same conclusion as Evich, affirming the awardability of punitive damages.
