An Eastern District of Missouri court recently concluded on March 5, 2012 that a Jones Act seaman can be entitled to punitive damages in In re Osage Marine Services, 10-1671 (E.D. Mo. 2012). The opinion joins the divide following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend. Louisiana courts have consistently held there is no Jones Act remedy to unseaworthiness, while the Supreme Court of Washington, in Icicle Seafoods, has a more expansive definition.
At issue is the scope of Miles v. Apex Marine versus Atlantic Sounding. Miles v. Apex concluded that when Congress passed the Jones Act, it had the option of including a right to punitive damages, which it chose not to exercise. The courts, which “sail in occupied waters,” as Justice O’Connor memorably put it, should not fashion a more expansive remedy than Congress had. The Court sought to make recovery for unseaworthiness coincident with recovery under the Jones Act, explaining ” It would be inconsistent with our place in the constitutional scheme were we to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially-created cause of action in which liability is without fault (i.e. unseaworthiness) than Congress has allowed in cases of death resulting from negligence.”
Atlantic Sounding explained that maintenance and cure is different than unseaworthiness and allowed punitive damages in that context. Now, this Missouri district court has ruled negligence and unseaworthiness are different enough after all. In the court’s formulation, a plaintiff can recover punitive damages for unseaworthiness, but not for negligence.
This issue is ripe for review by the appellate courts and will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court within the next three years. When it does, the safer money likely is on the Court affirming its unanimous decision in Miles v. Apex than concluding its 5-4 decision in Atlantic Sounding overruled Miles.