Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend
Edgar Townsend was a crew member of the Motor Tug Thomas. He fell on the steel deck of the boat injuring his arm and shoulder. Upon informing the owner of the tugboat, Townsend alleges that the owner informed him that it would not provide maintenance and cure ("M&C"). Both parties filed claims; Atlantic Sounding sought declaratory relief regarding their obligations with respect to M&C and Townsend filed suit under the Jones Act and the general maritime law alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
Atlantic Sounding filed a motion to dismiss Townsend's punitive damages claim. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but certified the question for interlocutory appeal; where the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. Due to conflicting decisions among the Court of Appeals on the Issue the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Do punitive exist for the arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure?
The Supreme Court found no obstacle to Townsend's ability to recover punitive damages for the breach of Atlantic Sounding's maintenance and cure duty under general maritime law. The Court began its analysis with a historical analysis of the existence of punitive damages in common law and the extension of these damages to maritime claims. The Court explained that early maritime law accorded broad discretion to maritime courts to award damages; including the ability to award punitive damages despite the fact that they may not have used the specific terminology of punitive damages. Therefore, having found the existence of punitive damages in general maritime law maintenance and cure actions the Court then looked to see if Congress has enacted legislation departing from the general maritime law allowance of punitive damages.
In its analysis of maritime legislation, the Court explained that only the Jones Act could serve as a basis for overturning the general maritime rule. While the Jones Act created a statutory cause of action for negligence, it did not eliminate pre-existing remedies available to seaman for maintenance and cure actions.
The Court denied that it's opinion in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. 498 U.S. 19 (1990) made the Jones Act the controlling law. Atlantic Sounding argued that Miles limited a seaman's recovery for death or personal injury to the remedies under the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas act but the court held that Atlantic Soundings reading of Miles was too broad. The Court distinguished Miles because it did not address maintenance and cure but instead dealt with whether the general maritime law should provide a cause of action for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness.
Thus, the court held that 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 under the general maritime law.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 under the general maritime law.
<< PREVNEXT >>
