Florida Injury Lawyers Blog

On June 25, 2009, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion on the rather limited question presented for its review in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v. Edgar Townsend: whether an injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. According to the 5:4 majority opinion, the answer is yes.

We would recommend that those readers who may be unfamiliar with maritime law jurisprudence review the following blogs for background information on the Jones Act, and the Doctrines of Unseaworthiness and Maintenance and Cure.

As of date of this blog, only the Slip Opinion as been published. This blog will be updated in the future with actual citation page references once the complete citation becomes available.

In Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, the owner of a tugboat advised a crewman injured aboard the tugboat, that it would not provide maintenance and cure. See 496 F. 3d 1282 (CA11 2007). The tugboat owner subsequently filed an action for declaratory relief regarding their obligations with respect to maintenance and cure. The injured seaman then filed his own lawsuit against the vessel owner under the federal Jones Act alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure, and wrongful termination. The Plaintiff also had filed similar counterclaims against the vessel owner in the declaratory action judgment, seeking punitive damages for the denial of maintenance and cure. Id. at 1283-1284

The vessel owner in Atlantic Sounding moved to dismiss the injured seaman’s punitive damages claim. The 11th Circuit of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that punitive damages were available in an action for maintenance and cure under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hines v. J.A. Laporte, Inc., 820 F. 2d 1187, 1189 (CA 11 1987). Atlantic Sounding, Slip Op. at 1284.

Due to a conflict among the circuits concerning the availability of punitive damages under maintenance and cure actions, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 25, 2009, the Court held that injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. Atlantic Sounding Co., et al. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 2009, Slip Op. at 1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The majority opinion first noted that “[p]unitive damage awards have long been an available remedy at common law for wanton, willful, or outrageous conduct” to establish that punitive damages are “nothing new” in American Jurisprudence. Punitive damages are intended to compensate the injured or damaged party above and beyond compensatory damages for particularly egregious conduct on the part of the defendant.

Justice Thomas’ opinion included a review of the long history behind the development of maritime common law jurisprudence during the 1800s and pointed out that in 1893, the High Court in Lake Shore & Michigan, Southern R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U.S. 101, 108 (1893) had held that “[t]he general rule that punitive damages were available at common law extended to claims arising under federal maritime law.” Atlantic Sounding, Slip Op. at 5.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Makes an Injured Seaman’s Right to Punitive Damages a Reality in Maintenance and Cure Lawsuits" »

Posted by Troy & Schwartz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injured Seamens' Rights Under Maritime Law

Bookmark:

INJURED SEA AND MARITIME WORKERS: KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER MARITIME INJURY LAW - Part III

Injured Seaman’s Entitlement to Maintenance and Cure

The first two blogs in this series discussed a seaman’s right to bring tort claims alleging: 1) negligence on the part of his employer under the Jones Act; and/or 2) against the owner of the vessel alleging that the vessel was unseaworthy. Of course, in many cases, the seaman’s employer is also the vessel’s owner.

An injured vessel worker who meets the definition of seaman, quite apart from any liability claims he may have under the Jones Act and/or the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness, is entitled to Maintenance and Cure if he was injured or becomes ill while in the service of the vessel. Through the years, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that maintenance refers to the right of an ill or injured seaman to meals and lodging [living allowance] comparable to that which he would have received aboard his vessel. Lewis v. Lewis Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 441 (2001) citing Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 527-528 (1938). See also Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962).

Maritime law is a complex area and an injured seaman or maritime worker should consider seeking out an experienced maritime law attorney before settling any claim with an employer to discuss his potential avenues for compensation for his sustained injuries given the facts of his case. Maritime law attorneys will thoroughly evaluate the claimant’s case, and part of this evaluation will be to determine if the claimant has an action for maintenance and cure, as well as actions in tort.

Moreover, an employer and/or ship owner may well pay "maintenance and cure" monies and then offer to enter into a settlement agreement with the injured seaman. The injured seaman, perhaps already overwhelmed by his injuries and fear, may unknowingly accept a "low" settlement amount where he also agrees to not pursue any lawsuit even where the injuries were the result of employer negligence or vessel unseaworthiness. Rights (such as the right to bring a lawsuit) given up in a settlement agreement are usually lost forever. Before signing any settlement agreement with his employer and/or the ship's owner, the injured seaman should consult with a maritime law attorney to get a full understanding of the potential value of his injuries given the facts of his case.

The following discussion is provided to give some background on maintenance and cure in general and an update on recent case law.

Cure refers to employer’s payment of the injured seaman’s reasonable medical expenses related to the treatment of his injuries up until the seaman’s reaches the point of Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) or is found to be fit for duty by his doctor. MMI does not mean that the seaman has fully recovered from his injuries or illness. Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 528 (1938) What it does mean is that any further improvement of the injured seaman’s medical condition will not be achievable through additional medical intervention. Once this point is reached, the injured seaman’s employer has no further obligation to pay medical expenses.

The original public policy behind the concept of “Maintenance and Cure” can perhaps best be summed up by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story’s description of the life a seaman:

Seamen are by the perculiarity of their lives liable to sudden sickness from change of climate, exposure to perils, and exhausting labour. . . If some provision be not made for them 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. . .If these expenses are a charge upon the ship, the interest of the owner will be immediately connected with that of the seamen. . . Even the merchant himself derives an ultimate benefit from what may at first seem an onerous charge. It encourages seamen to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude, and at lower wages. . . and urges the seamen to encounter hazards in the ship’s service, from which they might otherwise be disposed to withdraw.
Barnes v. Andover Comp., L.P., 900 F.2d 630, 632 (3rd Cir. 1990) quoting Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. 480, 482-83 (1823).

Continue reading "Part III - An Injured Seaman's Entitlement to Maintenance & Cure" »

Posted by Troy & Schwartz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injured Seamens' Rights Under Maritime Law

Bookmark:

INJURED SEA AND MARITIME WORKERS:
KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER MARITIME INJURY LAW - Part II

The Jones Act: When is a Vessel a Vessel and a Seaman a Seaman?

Maritime law is a complex area of the law. An injured seaman or maritime worker should consider seeking out an experienced maritime law attorney before settling any claim with an employer. A maritime law attorney will discuss the seaman’s potential avenues for seeking compensation for his injuries under the Jones Act given the facts of his case. A maritime law attorney will thoroughly evaluate the claimant’s case, and part of this evaluation will be to determine if the claimant will qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act. If the individual qualifies as a seaman and can prove that his sustained injuries stem from his employer’s negligence, or the negligence of his fellow employees, the injured seamen can seek recovery of the following damages:

1. Wages lost from the time of the injury to the time of trial;
2. Loss of future wages;
3. Compensation for medical expenses already incurred and future medical expenses; and
4. Compensation for pain, suffering, and disfigurement.

Under the federal Jones Act , 46 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq., an injured seaman who sustains injuries in the course of his employment due to the negligence of his employers and/or co-workers can seek compensation for his injuries through a maritime personal injury lawsuit. The complaint which initiates the lawsuit may also include a claim that the vessel was unseaworthy. See Part I of this series of blogs which deals with the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness.

The Jones Act is specific for injured seamen, and provides a succinct definition of seaman. The “defining” task has been left up to the courts. Indeed, one of the major issues often arising in a maritime lawsuit brought under the Jones Act is whether the injured complainant will be deemed a seaman and therefore be able to avail himself of the remedies available under the Jones Act.

The analysis of whether or not the plaintiff is a seaman may first involve a determination by the court as to what vessel or vessels exist before determining whether the Plaintiff had a relationship to the vessel. See In re Two-J Ranch, Inc. 534 F. Supp. 2d 671, 677 (W.D. La. 2008).

Continue reading "Injured Sea and Maritime Workers, Part II - Understanding the Jones Act" »

Posted by Troy & Schwartz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injured Seamens' Rights Under Maritime Law

Bookmark:

When they think about accidents at sea, many people think of the TV or newspaper stories of passengers on large cruise ships who are injured because of a slip and fall accident or become sick from food poisoning. While it is certainly true that many cruise ship passengers are injured every year during their cruise ship vacations, there is another class of people injured at sea which generally receives little media publicity.

This class consists of the seamen or sea workers who are injured while performing the duties of their job. Sea workers include employees of both luxurious cruise ships and cargo ships. The life of a seaworker may at first blush seem adventurous and glamorous. In reality, a ship, being in motion, and subject to the vagaries of storms and other dangers at sea, is a dangerous working environment. Moreover, a seriously injured seaworker may not be able to obtain immediate medical attention if the ship is hundreds of miles away from a port with suitable medical care facilities.

Seamen who are injured aboard ship generally have three possible sources of compensation for their injuries: The Doctrine of Unseaworthiness of the Vessel, the Jones Act, and the Principle of Maintenance of Cure. For cases where a seaman is killed while in the performance of his duties, the seaman’s family may also seek damages under the Death on the High Seas Act.

This blog posting will discuss the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness and succeeding blogs will cover the Jones Act, the Principle of Maintenance of Cure, and recent case law. It should be emphasized that an injured seaman has an absolute right to maintenance and cure under Maritime law, quite apart from any lawsuit which he or she may bring for personal injury brought under the Jones Act and/or the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness.

Maritime law is a complex area of the law. An injured seaman or maritime worker should consider seeking out an experienced maritime law attorney before settling any claim with his employer. Otherwise the injured worker may never obtain the compensation he may well be entitled to given the facts of his case and the extent of his injuries.

Continue reading "Injured Seamen: Understanding Your Rights Under Maritime Law - Part 1" »

Posted by Troy & Schwartz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injured Seamens' Rights Under Maritime Law

Bookmark: