Old Mud
Well-Known Angler
Supreme Court Rules Punitive Damages Not Available on Unseaworthiness Claims
I received this yesterday from another site. he's a Maritime Lawyer and a good guy who sometimes forget he's talking to lay people.
Anyway this is quite interesting and might even be of use to some folks here. after a little prodding he answered with the same version that most folks can understand. (Below this)
.Today, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split in the federal circuits by ruling that punitive damages are not awardable to injured seafarers on claims involving a willful and wanton breach of the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The decision is Dutra Group v. Batterton, case number 18-266.
The case does not change the rule that allows punitive damages in maritime cases involving a willful and wanton failure to pay maintenance, cure and unearned wages (crew shares) to injured crew members, or in other maritime cases involving willful and wanton conduct unrelated to the doctrine of unseaworthiness.
The decision prompted a strong dissent by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor based on the Supreme Court's earlier decision and reasoning in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009).
This case matters, including because it reduces the vessel owner's potential liability (exposure) arising from an injury suffered by a member of the crew. Among other things, that reduction of liability should result in lower premiums for protection and indemnity liability policies (i.e., in cheaper insurance).
Some federal circuit courts of appeals have not been allowing punitive damages in such cases all along; others were doing so, resulting in some large verdicts. The split of authority on the point resulted in uncertainty, and likely has contributed to higher "P&I" insurance premiums. Now that the split in authority has been resolved -- against allowing punitive damages in unseaworthiness cases -- premiums on P&I policies should be lower (especially in some jurisdictions).
Your insurance broker might not yet be aware of this decision. Letting your broker know about the Supreme Court's ruling today in Dutra Group v. Batterton might help at renewal time.
.Version for the layman.
.
Before this Supreme Court ruling, depending on which part of the country the accident happened, a crew member hurt while in the service of the vessel could sue his/her employer, the vessel owner and the vessel itself, and potentially recover an amount of money for damages not only for his/her actual losses (lost income, lost future income, pain and suffering, disfigurement, medical expenses, disability and related forced change of lifestyle, etc.) but also for punitive damages (an additional amount of money to punish the vessel owner and or employer for being so careless, reckless, etc. and to discourage others from being so careless, reckless, etc.).
Because of this new ruling (yesterday), no matter in which part of the country the accident happened (i.e., no matter in which jurisdiction or federal circuit the suit is filed), persons who are injured on vessels (regardless of the type or size of vessel involved) will only be able to sue for actual (we say compensatory) damages -- not punitive damages on top of actual damages.
There is an important exception to the rule that punitive damages are not available to an injured crew member: Under maritime law, when a crew member falls ill or is injured while in the service of the vessel, that crew member is automatically (unless guilty of certain kinds of bad conduct that directly resulted in the injury or illness) entitled to 1) Maintenance (a daily stipend to cover actual living expenses during the period of recuperation); 2) Cure (medical care until he/she reaches "maximum medical cure," i.e., gets better from the injury or illness); and 3) Unearned Wages through the duration of the voyage or the fishing season or the duration of the crew contract (whether based on crew share, layshare, hourly pay, daily rate, or monthly salary). Again, this tripartite remedy of Maintenance, Cure and Unearned Wages is automatic -- without regard to fault, in the sense that the crew member need not prove the employer was negligent or the vessel was unseaworthy, but only that he/she was employed in the service of the vessel when injured (for example because of equipment failure, defective gear, unsafe method or system, negligence of the owner or operator, etc.) or when the crew member fell ill (heart attack, appendicitis, etc.). This is like "Workers Compensation," sort of, for those who work on boats (except longshoremen, who have a very different set of laws that protect them), but is provided by the vessel owner/employer and or boat insurer rather than by the state. If a crew member falls ill or is injured while in the service of the boat, and the the vessel owner (or his/her insurer) fails to provide Maintenance, Cure and Unearned Wages, the crew member can sue for breach of the duty to provide these three remedies and recover not only the amounts that should have been paid, but also punitive damages plus attorney's fees and costs of suit -- if the vessel owner was willful or wanton about failing to quickly and properly investigate the matter and to pay the three automatic remedies. The availability of punitive damages for wrongful failure to pay Maintenance, Cure and Unearned Wages remains unchanged by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.
Obviously, the potential exposure or liability in connection with an injured crew member is enormous, including because the obligation to pay for the medical care and living expenses can continue for a very long time before the injured or ill person reaches maximum medical cure. Nevertheless, by cutting off the possibility of being hit with punitive damages based on a claim of unseaworthiness, the exposure to liability just went way, way down. As noted above, punitive damages still can be awarded based on a willful and wanton failure to pay Maintenance, Cure and Unearned Wages, but that risk is controllable by promptly investigating any claim of injury or illness and then promptly providing any Maintenance, Cure and Unearned Wages that are due.
In the Dutra Group v. Batterton case, the plaintiff was a deckhand on a scow involved in dredging. He was injured when a hold was being pressurized by other members of the crew. The pressure built up too high and a hatch cover suddenly blew open, crushing Plaintiff's hand between the hatch cover and a bulkhead, causing permanent disability. The trial court ruled that punitive damages would be available based on Plaintiff's claim that the vessel was "unseaworthy" (which in maritime law means that the boat or its equipment, or gear, or operations, or methods, etc. was not squared away) and that the unseaworthy condition caused or contributed to the accident. The vessel owner/employer appealed and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling on that issue. The Supreme Court then took up the case to resolve a split or disagreement among the federal circuit courts of appeals. (Some had been allowing punitive damages based on unseaworthiness claims and some had not been allowing such damages in cases involving unseaworthiness). Now, with yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court, punitive damages based on the doctrine of unseaworthiness will not be allowed anywhere in the country. It is actually a pretty big deal throughout the maritime industry.
