 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jones Act Decision -
Punitive Damages not
Available in
Unseaworthiness Case
The U.S. Supreme Court
recently ruled that an injured
claimant may not recover
punitive damages in a case
based on a theory of
unseaworthiness. The
matter involved a deckhand
working for a dredging and
marine construction
company. He sustained
injury when a hatch cover
blew open as a result of
fellow crewmembers
introducing pressurized air
into a compartment
belowdecks.
(See the decision PDF -
DutraGroup v. Batterton)
The employee argued that
his injuries could have been
prevented had there been
some means of relieving
pressure in the
compartment, some
provision to hold the hatch
cover open, or simply
through supervision or
warning. The deckhand’s
lawsuit was based on
negligence and failing to
provide a seaworthy vessel.
Maintenance and cure were
also demanded. The
deckhand sought punitive
damages, arguing that
failure to provide a
seaworthy vessel was
wanton and willful.
In terms of legal theories,
negligence is essentially
means carelessness, often
described as a breach of a
duty owed to the seaman
Unseaworthiness is based
on a vessel owner’s
absolute duty to provide a
vessel that is seaworthy.
Maintenance is money for
living expenses and cure is
coverage for medical
expenses.
“Unseaworthiness” is a
familiar term for anyone who
works on the water. But the
word can mean different
things, depending on the
context. We tend to think of
“seaworthy” as describing a
robustly built vessel, like a
double-ended ocean
voyager with heavy masts
that would emerge
unscathed from a Pacific
typhoon. But in the realm of
Jones Act cases, the term is
more about a duty to
provide a vessel reasonably
fit for its intended purpose.
In this vein, the term
unseaworthiness is more
like a warranty of a safe
workplace than an attribute
of a vessel’s strength and
seakeeping abilities in a
storm.
As for punitive damages,
courts in general don’t like
to use them liberally. Judges
tend to reserve punitive
damages for situations
where a party’s conduct is
egregious or outrageous. It
would need to be something
so disturbing that ordinary
compensation would be
deemed inadequate in the
eyes of a jury.
In this case, the Supreme
Court held that a plaintiff
may not recover punitive
damages in an
unseaworthiness claim.
DUTRA GROUP v.
BATTERTON CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 18–
266.
Back to Maritime Law News
Back to Maritime Attorney Homepage
Punitive Damages not
Available in
Unseaworthiness Case
The U.S. Supreme Court
recently ruled that an injured
claimant may not recover
punitive damages in a case
based on a theory of
unseaworthiness. The
matter involved a deckhand
working for a dredging and
marine construction
company. He sustained
injury when a hatch cover
blew open as a result of
fellow crewmembers
introducing pressurized air
into a compartment
belowdecks.
(See the decision PDF -
DutraGroup v. Batterton)
The employee argued that
his injuries could have been
prevented had there been
some means of relieving
pressure in the
compartment, some
provision to hold the hatch
cover open, or simply
through supervision or
warning. The deckhand’s
lawsuit was based on
negligence and failing to
provide a seaworthy vessel.
Maintenance and cure were
also demanded. The
deckhand sought punitive
damages, arguing that
failure to provide a
seaworthy vessel was
wanton and willful.
In terms of legal theories,
negligence is essentially
means carelessness, often
described as a breach of a
duty owed to the seaman
Unseaworthiness is based
on a vessel owner’s
absolute duty to provide a
vessel that is seaworthy.
Maintenance is money for
living expenses and cure is
coverage for medical
expenses.
“Unseaworthiness” is a
familiar term for anyone who
works on the water. But the
word can mean different
things, depending on the
context. We tend to think of
“seaworthy” as describing a
robustly built vessel, like a
double-ended ocean
voyager with heavy masts
that would emerge
unscathed from a Pacific
typhoon. But in the realm of
Jones Act cases, the term is
more about a duty to
provide a vessel reasonably
fit for its intended purpose.
In this vein, the term
unseaworthiness is more
like a warranty of a safe
workplace than an attribute
of a vessel’s strength and
seakeeping abilities in a
storm.
As for punitive damages,
courts in general don’t like
to use them liberally. Judges
tend to reserve punitive
damages for situations
where a party’s conduct is
egregious or outrageous. It
would need to be something
so disturbing that ordinary
compensation would be
deemed inadequate in the
eyes of a jury.
In this case, the Supreme
Court held that a plaintiff
may not recover punitive
damages in an
unseaworthiness claim.
DUTRA GROUP v.
BATTERTON CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 18–
266.
Back to Maritime Law News
Back to Maritime Attorney Homepage