McBride v. Estis, 12-557 (W.D.La. 2012).
On March 9, 2011, the barge Estis Rig 23 was operating in Bayou Sorrell, a navigable waterway in the State of Louisiana. As the barge crew, all of whom were employed by Estis, was attempting to straighten the twisted monkey board in the derrick, the pipe in the derrick shifted, and the derrick and rig fell over. One crew member died, and three more claim that they were injured. The three injured crewmembers and the decedent’s representative brought suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Each plaintiff also asserted claims for punitive and/or exemplary damages due to Estis’ alleged gross, willful, wanton, and/or reckless conduct that allegedly constituted a callous disregard of, or showed indifference to, the safety of the crewmembers. Defendant, Estis Well Service, LLC, filed a 12(b)(6) motion seeking to dismiss each plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages.
The issue before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana was whether the remedy of punitive damages were legally cognizable under the Jones Act or general maritime law in the context of a wrongful death/survival action, or a personal injury action.
Plaintiffs contended the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 557 US. 404 (2009), left open the question as to whether punitive damages are available under the Jones Act, while Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) made punitive damages available under general maritime law. Lastly, plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court’s ruling in Townsend, which abrogated the en banc decision of Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Co. 59 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1995)reinstated the holding of In Re Merry Shipping, 650 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1981) as controlling precedent, permitting the recovery of punitive damages.
Judge Hanna held Townsend “does not call into question Miles’ holding concerning the damages limitations applicable to the Jones Act” and “does not … cast doubt on the [Miles] Court’s holding that the Jones Act incorporated FELA’s ‘pecuniary limitation on damages.’ The court recited the analysis utilized by the district court in Wagner v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, 2010 WL 3566730 (D.Hi. Sept. 13, 2010) which concluded the Ninth Circuit’s prohibition on punitive damages under the Jones Act as set forth in Kopcynski v. The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1984) was consistent with Townsend and remained good law.
The Court next addressed whether the general maritime law allowed punitive damages outside of the context of arbitrary and capricious refusal to pay maintenance and cure. The Court, citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex Marine, held that notwithstanding the existence of federal statutory schemes including the Clean Water Act and the Jones Act, that punitive damages are a viable remedy afforded under the general maritime law only for (1) a maritime tort suffered by non-seamen, and (2) the failure to pay maintenance and cure to seamen. Accordingly, damages are not an available remedy to a seaman due to a finding a vessel was unseaworthy.