Home     Firm Overview      Attorneys      Practice Groups      Resources      News      Offices      Careers      Contact     
Main Office: Seattle
1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3600
Seattle, Washington 98154
Telephone: (206) 623-5890
Facsimile: (206) 623-0965

Satellite Office: Anacortes
2415 T Avenue, Suite 207
Anacortes, Washington 98221
Telephone: (360) 293-6407
Facsimile: (360) 588-8034

Legal News Headlines

EPA Considers New Regulations on Agricultural Dust
August 2nd, 2010

Limited Partnerships Now Required to File Annual Reports with State of Washington
July 23rd, 2010

Senate Bill Proposes Repeal of U.S. Flag Rule in Jones Act
July 12th, 2010

Consider Prenuptial Do’s and Dont's as Estate Planning Tool
July 6th, 2010

Proposed OSHA Changes in General Industy, Maritime, Construction and Agricultural Standards
July 6th, 2010


U.S. Supreme Court Confirms that Punitive Damages Available in Maritime Maintenance and Cure Claims
July 16th, 2009

By Lafcadio Darling

In a decision just handed down, the Supreme Court in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 2009 WL 1789469 (U.S. June 25, 2009) held that a seaman can recover punitive damages on a maritime maintenance and cure case if there is a showing of "willful and wanton" conduct.


In July 2005, Edgar Townsend was allegedly injured while working aboard the tug boat Thomas. His employer, Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. sought declaratory judgment in a federal district court to determine its obligations toward him under maritime law. Mr. Townsend counterclaimed, alleging in part that Atlantic Sounding's arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure for his injuries justified punitive damages. Atlantic Sounding moved to dismiss and, when the motion was denied, allowed an appeal.


The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court. The court held it was bound by its prior decision in Hines v. J.A. LaPorte, Inc. There, it concluded a seaman may recover punitive damages when an employer arbitrarily and willfully refuses to pay maintenance and cure for his injuries. It reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. did not apply. In that case, the Court held that recovery for "non-pecuniary loss in the wrongful death of a seaman was not available under general maritime law". The court of appeals reasoned that Miles was not "clearly on point" to the facts in Mr. Townsend's case.


The Court explained: "Because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because nothing in the Jones Act altered this understanding, such damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation should remain available in the appropriate case as a matter of general maritime law. Limiting recovery for maintenance and cure to whatever is permitted by the Jones Act would give greater pre-emptive effect to the Act than is required by its text, Miles [v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990], or any of this Court's other decisions interpreting the statute."


A copy of the Court's opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-214.pdf

Lafcadio Darling specializes in maritime and commercial litigation, representing a wide variety of business and consumer clients.  In addition to being licensed in Washington and California, Lafcadio also holds an LL.M. from University College London and is a licensed solicitor in England & Wales


 
   8:15 pm - September 9, 2010 Legal    Contact
A PaperStreet Web Design