Maritime Injury Law Blog

A claim for punitive damages made by a commercial diver based upon the legal theory of unseaworthiness has withstood legal challenge in the United States District Court for Hawaii. The Court found as a matter of law that punitive damages may be sought in cases involving unseaworthiness. The Court based its holding on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Soundings Co. v. Townsend, finding that the Ninth Circuit’s previous holding in Evich v. Morris permitting punitive damages for unseaworthiness remains intact.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Soundings v. Townsend, the majority of the Courts had expanded the Supreme Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex Marine to prohibit punitive damages in Jones Act and unseaworthiness cases. Based upon the Supreme Court’s rationale and analysis in Atlantic Soundings allowing punitive damages in maintenance and cure cases, the Hawaii District Court rejected the vessel owner’s argument that the Supreme Court’s holding in Miles v. Apex Marine prohibited punitive damages in unseaworthiness claims. In a detailed analysis, the District Court Judge found that there was no statutory preemption of punitive damages in a general maritime law claim for unseaworthiness.

Citing Evich v. Morris with favor, the District Court noted that punitive damages serve the purpose of punishing a defendant, teaching him to not do it again, and deterring others from following his example. To recover punitive damages, a seaman must show that the vessel owner’s conduct is willful and wanton.

Superior Court Judge Richard Eddie has held that a seaman’s wrongful death claim involving claims for punitive damages for unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence will proceed to trial on the merits. The vessel owner and employer’s motion to dismiss the seaman’s claim for punitive damages was rejected. Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Soundings v. Townsend, Judge Eddie found as a matter of law that claims for punitive damages are available under both the Jones Act and under the unseaworthiness doctrine.

The case, Nes v. Sea Warrior, King County Cause No. 09-2-05771-1SEA, is thought to be the first in Washington State to reestablish a seaman’s right to punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit had previously recognized punitive damages for seamen in cases such as Evich v. Moriss, but subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex Marine, most Courts had prohibited punitive damages in seaman injury and wrongful death cases. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court decided Atlantic Soundings v. Townsend allowed punitive damages in maintenance and cure cases. In cases post Atlantic Soundings, punitive damages may not be available in Death On the High Seas Act cases. However, that no longer means that punitive damages will not be granted in appropriate negligence and unseaworthy cases involving willful and wanton conduct.

Late in 2009 a King County jury awarded a seaman 1.3 million dollars in punitive damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. That case, Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, is now on appeal and will set legal precedent in Washington State about how punitive damages may be calculated and awarded.

For the past ten years, maritime workers aboard ships and fishing vessels at sea have been able to cheaply stay in contact with their wives, children and girlfriends, and even run a shoreside business, utilizing the ship’s e-mail system. There has never been much privacy on a ship at sea, but most crewmen think their ship-to-shore e-mails to their wives and girlfriends are confidential. Few crewmen realize that those e-mails on company provided computers and accounts may not be confidential, even though the crewman is using a private password. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, City of Ontario v. Jeff Quon, et al., 130 S.Ct. 2366, suggests that employees utilizing company owned computers may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their e-mails will not be read by their employer.
Continue reading