Case List Presented topically, then chronologically by court as excerpted from
Download 36.46 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
- THE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON DUE PROCESS
- MILES
- TOWNSEND – MILES EBBS
- WHAT ABOUT UNSEAWORTHINESS MILES
- MILES EXPLOSUS
| Case List
Presented topically, then chronologically by court as excerpted from Stevan Dittman, Amiable or Merry?, Tul. L.Rev. (forthcoming 2015) Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (holding that seaman was entitled, as a matter of general maritime law, to seek punitive damages for his employer's alleged willful and wanton disregard of its maintenance and cure obligation). Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (holding that: (1) imposing liability on the insurer under the respondeat superior doctrine was not fundamentally unfair; (2) common-law method for assessing punitive damages is not per se unconstitutional; and (3) punitive damages assessed against insurer, although large in proportion to insured's compensatory damages and out-of-pocket expenses, did not violate due process). HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 546 (1818) (noting in dicta that in case of a gross and wanton outrage, on an illegal seizure, the original wrongdoers may be responsible beyond the loss actually sustained). Ralston v. State Rights, 20 F. Cas. 201 (E.D. Pa. 1836) (noting that “vindictive” damages in a collision case should be granted only when the vessel’s owner had performed some affirmative act in ordering his agent’s grossly wrongful conduct). Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1838) (holding that a state court held that a vessel owner must actually condone a captain’s intentional wrong before the vessel owner could be held liable for punitive damages). Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway v. Prentice, 147 U.S. 101, 114 (1883) (holding that a railroad is not liable for its conductor’s conduct, which it neither authorized nor approved). P & E Boat Rentals, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 872 F. 2d 642 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a vessel owner for acts of its master unless it can be shown that owner authorized or ratified the master’s either before or after accident or unless owner was reckless in employing unfit master). THE SUPREME COURT WEIGHS IN ON DUE PROCESS Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (holding that: (1) imposing liability on the insurer under the respondeat superior doctrine was not fundamentally unfair; (2) common-law method for assessing punitive damages is not per se unconstitutional; and (3) punitive damages assessed against insurer, although large in proportion to insured's compensatory damages and out-of-pocket expenses, did not violate due process). BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (holding in suit alleging manufacturer fraud that an award of $2,000,000 punitive damages was grossly excessive and therefore violated due process in light of low level of reprehensibility of conduct and 500 to 1 ratio between award and actual harm to purchaser). State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (holding in a bad faith failure to settle an insurance dispute that a punitive damages award of $145 million violated the Due Process Clause in a case involving $1 million in compensatory damages). Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (holding that (1) for an equally divided court, defendant could be liable in punitive damages for reckless acts of its managerial employees; (2) Clean Water Act's (CWA) penalties for water pollution did not preempt maritime common law on punitive damages; and (3) maximum award of punitive damages allowed under maritime law was equal to jury's award of $507.5 million in compensatory damages). Protectus Alpha Navigation Co., Ltd. v. North Pacific Grain Growers, Inc., 767 F. 2d 1379 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that grain terminal owner was liable for punitive damages after its dock foreman defied orders of firemen and cast burning vessel adrift from grain terminal dock on river, resulting in death of one fireman stranded aboard vessel, serious injuries to another fireman, and destruction of vessel, where dock foreman clearly occupied a managerial position and was acting within the scope of his employment when he cast off the vessel). CEN, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694 (1st Cir. 1995)(holding that the imposition of punitive damages of $50,000 against owner of fishing trawler which had destroyed 134 lobster traps which had been grouped off-shore in lobster trawls was not excessive in light of willful and malicious conduct of captain of trawler, to whom owner had delegated complete authority, in destroying traps, even though award was five times greater than punitive damages awarded against captain who was directly responsible; in comparison to net worth, consideration of which was integral to objectives of punitive damages, punishment of owner was proportionately much less than that of captain). MILES AND ITS WAKE Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corp., 436 U.S. 618 (1978) (holding that (1) the measure of damages in an action for wrongful death on the high seas was governed by the Death on the High Seas Act, and (2) the decedents' survivors were limited to recovering their pecuniary loss and could not recover additional damages under general maritime law for “loss of society). Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (holding that damages recoverable in a general maritime cause of action for the wrongful death of a seaman do not include loss of society). Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (holding that state remedies remain applicable in wrongful death and survival actions arising from accidents to nonseamen in territorial waters). Dyer v. Merry Shipping Co., 650 F. 2d 622, 623 (5th Cir. 1981) (held that punitive damages could be recovered in an action under general maritime law upon a showing of willful and wanton misconduct by the shipowner in the creation or maintenance of unseaworthy conditions) (Merry Shipping’s holding was followed in a number of decisions, including U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fuhrman, 407 F.2d 1143, 1148 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 958 (1970); In re Marine Sulphur Queen, 460 F.2d 89, 105 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 982 (1972); Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256, 258 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 914 (1987); Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 832 F.2d 1540, 1550 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1033 (1988); and Miles v. Melrose, 882 F.2d 976, 989 (5th Cir. 1989), aff’d sub nom. Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), but overruled by Guevera). Galveston County Navigation Dist. No. 1 v. Hopson Towing Co., 92 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that there was no basis for award of attorney fees, under bad-faith exception to American Rule, to county navigation district which prevailed in admiralty suit against owners of tug boat whose tow collided with drawbridge owned and operated by district, where there was no evidence that owners took litigation position that failure to open drawbridge promptly and fully caused or contributed to damage maliciously or in bad faith, failed to comply with the discovery requests, filed frivolous pleadings, or otherwise abused litigation process). Murray v. Anthony J. Bertucci Construction Company, Inc., 958 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that (1) spouse of injured seaman did not have claim for loss of society under general maritime law; (2) injured seaman's children did not have claim for loss of society; and (3) new rule was to be applied to parties before court). Nichols v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 995 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that general maritime law precluded claim for loss of consortium in longshoreman's action arising from helicopter crash occurring outside territorial waters, distinguishing Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970) and Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573 (1974)). In re American River Transportation Co., 2007 A.M.C. 1593, 1601, 1604-1605 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that non-dependent parents of a longshoreman who died in territorial waters were not entitled to recover damages for loss of society). Rutherford v. Mallard Bay Drilling, No. 99-3689, 2000 WL 805230 (E.D. La. June 21, 2000) (holding that punitive damages may be recovered by an employee suing under 905(b) of the Longshore Act and because the Act has no restriction on remedies, as does the Jones Act, and thus damages are those recoverable under general maritime law, which permits punitive damages). MILES ALTERS THE LANDSCAPE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962) (holding that a seaman was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure where he was forced to hire an attorney to recover maintenance and cure, and amount due him for maintenance and cure was not subject to reduction for earnings during period shipowners disregarded his claim). Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F. 2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that a shipowner who unreasonably refused to pay maintenance and cure and exhibited callousness and indifference to seaman's plight may be liable for punitive damages and attorney's fees as well as amount of maintenance and cure and compensatory damages). Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496, 1506 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1046 (1996) (holding that punitive damages are not available in cases of willful nonpayment in any action for maintenance and cure, whether it be tort or contract like, under the general maritime law). Glynn v. Roy A-1 Boat Management Corp., 57 F. 3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1046 (1996), abrogated by Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 129 S. Ct. 2561, 174 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2009) (holding that attorney’s fees were available but punitive damages were not to seaman for employer's willful failure to investigate seaman's claim for maintenance and cure or to pay maintenance). O’Connell v. Interocean Management Corp., 90 F 3d 82 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that if a shipowner unreasonably refuses to pay maintenance and cure, it may be liable for consequential damages such as attorney’s fees, but that the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) barred punitive damage claim against private operator of public vessel for arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure). Watters v. Harrah’s Illinois Corp., 993 F. Supp. 667 (N.D. Ill. 1998), abrogated by Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 129 S. Ct. 2561, 174 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2009) (holding that punitive damages are not recoverable in maintenance and cure action under general maritime law for willful and wanton failure to pay maintenance and cure). TOWNSEND – MILES EBBS Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (holding that seaman was entitled, as a matter of general maritime law, to seek punitive damages for his employer's alleged willful and wanton disregard of its maintenance and cure obligation). Manderson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 666 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that vessel owner's conduct in denying maintenance and cure to seaman who was treated for ulcerative colitis and liver condition while working as engineer aboard vessel was not arbitrary and capricious, and, thus, seaman could not recover his attorney's fees from owner; owner presented numerous reasons to support its contention that seaman was not owed maintenance and cure, including that seaman failure to disclose his preexisting diabetes, and upon receiving formal demand from seaman's counsel, owner promptly referred matter to its underwriter to conduct an investigation). Meche v. Doucet, No. 14-30032, 2015 WL 293877 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2015) (reversing and vacating punitive damages award against Key Marine Services, finding that the plaintiffs had misrepresented his medical condition to the prior employer, which it found to be “tantamount to a misrepresentation to Key for purposes of the McCorpen defense”). Nelton v. Cenac Towing Co., LLC, No. 10-373, 2011 WL 289040 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2011) (awarding punitive damages and attorney’s fees for an employer’s wanton and willful withholding of maintenance of cure, as limited by Baker’s 1:1 ratio). Hicks v. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., 11 CIV. 8158 KBF, 2013 WL 1747806 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2013) (awarding punitive damages for wanton and willful withholding of maintenance and cure that comported with Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker’s 1:1 ratio). Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, CIV. 13-00002 ACK, 2013 WL 6062527 (D. Haw. Nov. 15, 2013) (holding that a seaman who was injured in explosion on ship failed to sufficiently allege actual facts that shipowners acted with malice and in willful and wanton manner by failing to pay him maintenance and cure, as required to support punitive damages award in seaman's action against shipowners seeking maintenance and cure). Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 174 Wash. 2d 70, 272 P.3d 827 (2012) (en banc), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 199, 184 L. Ed. 2d 39 (U.S. 2012) (holding that a judge determines and awards attorney fees in a maintenance and cure case and that the jury's punitive damage award for the willful withholding of maintenance and cure is not limited by federal maritime law 1:1 ratio in Baker). Stermer v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 140 So.3d 879 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2014) (holding that an employer’s “consistent” refusal to furnish maintenance and cure warranted punitive damages and attorney’s fees). WHAT ABOUT UNSEAWORTHINESS? MILES SEQUEBATUR In Doyle v. Graske, 579 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that “general maritime law does not allow recovery of loss-of-consortium damages by the spouses of nonseafarers negligently injured beyond the territorial waters of the United States”). In re Deepwater Horizon, 2011 WL 4575696 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2011), as amended (Oct. 4, 2011) (holding Miles' uniformity principle precludes punitive damages for injuries to non-seamen, thus because neither the Jones Act nor the Death on the High Seas Act speak to negligence claims asserted by non-seamen under general maritime law, and punitive damages have long been available at common law, punitive damages are available to nonseamen). Scott v. Cenac Towing Co., LLC, 2012 WL 4372515 (E.D. La. Sept. 24, 2012) (holding that “[a]lthough Townsend reinvigorated the debate as to punitive damages in claims arising under general maritime law, Townsend did not affect Miles' holding concerning the limitation on damages under the Jones Act”). Snyder v. L & M Botruc Rental, Inc., 2013 A.M.C. 1491 (E.D. La. 2013) (holding that a seaman injured aboard vessel could not obtain punitive damages for any gross negligence of his employer, or unseaworthiness of the vessel as may be allowed under general maritime law, since seaman would be precluded from recovering punitive damages on his negligence and unseaworthiness claims under the Jones Act because of the statute's pecuniary limitation); accord Todd v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., No. 13-339, 2013 WL 5410409 (E.D. La. Sept. 25, 2013); Bloodsaw v. Diamond Offshore Mgmt. Co., No. 10-4163, 2013 WL 5339207 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2013); Anderson v. Texaco, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 531, 534–536 (E.D. La.1992); Howard v. Atl. Pac. Marine Co., No. 89–3073, 1992 WL 55487, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 28, 1992). Hackensmith v. Port City S.S. Holding Co., 2013 WL 1451703 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 9, 2013) (holding that a seaman's widow could not recover non-pecuniary damages for loss of consortium or punitive damages for wrongful death based on claims against owner and operator of boat for Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness). MILES EXPLOSUS Wagner v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, 2010 WL 3566731 (D. Haw. Sept. 13, 2010) (holding that under Ninth Circuit Precedent in Evich, that “[p]unitive damages are available under general maritime law for claims of unseaworthiness”); accord Rowe v. Hornblower Fleet, 2012 WL 5833541 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012). In Lobegeiger v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2012 A.M.C. 202 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (holding that Miles did not affect injured passenger's damage claims for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, inconvenience and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, although “nominally non-pecuniary,” they remain recoverable in passenger maritime personal injury cases); accord Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2012 WL 920675 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2012). In re Complaint of Osage Marine Servs., Inc., No. 4:10-CV-1674 CEJ, 2012 WL 709188 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2012) (holding that Miles v. Apex does not preclude recovery of punitive damages in a seaman's personal injury claim based upon unseaworthiness under general maritime law, following the analysis of the Supreme Court's Atlantic Sounding opinion, because like maintenance and cure, neither the Jones Act nor any other federal statute has addressed or limited the availability of punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims). MacLay v. M/V SAHARA, 2013 WL 663023 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2013) (holding that loss-of-society damages were available under general maritime law for wrongful death of harbor worker covered by the LHWCA, who died during her employment on moored vessel, where worker was a non-seaman, and she died in the territorial waters of Washington State). MCBRIDE McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C, No. 12–30714, 2013 WL 5474616 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013), overruled by 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (holding that a seaman's recovery for unseaworthiness under the Jones Act or the general maritime law is limited to pecuniary losses, which does not include punitive damages). Callahan v. Gulf Logistics, L.L.C., 6:06 CV-0561-PM-KK, 2013 WL 5236888 (W.D. La. Sept. 16, 2013) (holding that there is “nothing in the language of § 905(b) which could be construed as so limiting the availability of punitive damages in a negligence action under the LHWCA”). Download 36.46 Kb. Share with your friends:
|