Florida Injury Lawyers Blog

The High Court went on to cite several cases which had upheld an award of punitive or exemplary damages for failure of the vessel owner to pay maintenance and cure “where the nature of the case required it,” prior to the enactment of the Jones Act of 1920. Atlantic Sounding Co., Slip Op. at 5-6.

The Atlantic Sounding defendants had argued that punitive damages in maintenance and cure actions are not warranted because the enactment of the Jones Act precluded an award of punitive damages, based on the following wording contained in the Jones Act:

“A seaman injured in the court of employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer. Laws of the United States, regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action under this section.” Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104(a) (incorporating the Federal Employers’ Liability Act [FELA], 45, U.S.C. §§ 41-60).

Slip Op. at 10. According to the Atlantic Sounding defendants, the Jones Act precluded recovery of punitive damages because the FELA does not itself provide for the recovery of punitive damages in personal injuries brought under the FELA. They further argued that the Jones Act provided the only remedy for maintenance and cure claims. Slip Op. at 17.

The High Court disagreed by first noting that the Jones Act is not the seaman’s exclusive remedy to seek compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his job based on the very wording of the Act. “Section 30104 [the Jones Act] bestows upon the injured seaman the right to “elect” to bring a Jones Act claim, thereby indicating a choice of actions for seamen, not an exclusive remedy.” Atlantic Sounding, Slip Op. at 17. Because the Congress was aware that the then-accepted remedies for injured seamen arose from general maritime law and not statutory law, the High Court reasoned, “ Slip Op. at 10. Interestingly, the Jones Act was passed by Congress to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court decision in The Osceolo, 189 U.S. 158, 175 (1903), where the Court had prohibited a seaman or his family from recovering for injuries or death suffered due to his employers’ negligence.

Justice Thomas’ noted that a claim for the “negligent denial of maintenance and cure may also be subject of a Jones Act Claim.” Slip Op. at 17. Or put another way, maintenance and cure claims that involve personal injury can be asserted under the Jones Act. This does not mean, however, that maintenance and cure actions have to be brought exclusively under the Jones Act. As provided in Cores v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 287 U.S. 367, 374-375 (1932), a seaman has the “right to choose among overlapping statutory and common-law remedies for injuries sustained by the denial of maintenance and cure.” Atlantic Sounding, Slip Op. at 17.

Because a seaman has the right to bring a “willful and wanton” maintenance and cure action separate and apart from any claims under the Jones Act for injuries resulting from the employer’s own negligence, the High Court held that punitive damages are awardable for non-Jones Act maintenance and cure actions. Why? “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.” Slip Op. at 19.

What exactly does Atlantic Sounding decision mean for the injured seaman? In a nutshell, the decision reiterates that remedies under the Jones Act and the unseaworthiness remedies are additional to maintenance and cure; the seaman may have maintenance and cure and also one of the other two. Slip Op. at 18. Furthermore, a seaman’s action for maintenance and cure is “independent” and “cumulative” from other claims such as negligence and that the maintenance and cure right as “in no sense inconsistent with, or an alternative of, the right to recover compensatory damages [under the Jones Act]”. Atlantic Sounding quoting Peterson, 278 U.S. 138, 139.

What does the holding in Atlantic Sounding mean for the injured seaman who has a valid claim for the wanton and willful disregard of maintenance and cure payments? That the damages awarded to the injured seaman may well include an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

In closing, we would emphasize that the Atlantic Sounding Court included in its discussion of a rather famous statement in maritime law made by Justice Story in 1832: “If some provision be not made for [seaman] in sickness at the expense of the ship, they must often in foreign ports suffer the accumulated evils of disease, and poverty, and sometimes perish from the want of suitable nourishment . . .[T]he merchant himself derives an ultimate benefit because it encourages seamen to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude and at lower wages.” Slip Op. at 7.

Though overall vessel living conditions may have improved considerably since 1832, the fact remains that the very nature of many seamen’s jobs exposes them to daily dangers. Under the Maintenance and Cure doctrine, which was in effect long before the enactment of the Jones Act, an injured seaman is entitled to financial compensation for covering reasonable living and medical expenses.

As discussed in our previous blogs, the area of Maritime law is complex. It is recommended that any seaman who has been injured in the course of his or her duties consult with an attorney of his/her choosing to discuss his options and legal rights, including the legal right to be rewarded punitive damages, where appropriate, under the High Court’s opinion in Atlantic Sounding, 557 U.S. 2009.