US Supreme Court holds punitive damages are recoverable for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure
June, 2009
By
Marilyn Raia
Resolving a conflict between circuits as to whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure of his employer to pay him maintenance and cure, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atlantic Sounding Co, Inc. v. Townsend 2009 WL 1789469 (2009) held such damages are recoverable.
Townsend, a seaman, hurt his arm while working aboard Atlantic Sounding's tug. Atlantic Sounding told Townsend it would not pay him maintenance and cure. Atlantic Sounding filed a declaratory relief action seeking the court's judgment that it had no obligation to pay maintenance and cure. Townsend filed an action against Atlantic Sounding under the Jones Act and general maritime law alleging, among other things, the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
The District Court denied Atlantic Sounding's motion to dismiss Townsend's punitive damages claim but certified the issue for an interlocutory appeal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Townsend could seek punitive damages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari because of a conflict among the circuits on the issue, the Fifth and Ninth Circuits having previously held punitive damages are not recoverable for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court first reviewed "three settled legal principles." Relying on British and American case law, it recognized punitive damages have long been recoverable at common law for wanton, willful or outrageous conduct. Indeed, it found American courts have awarded punitive damages in appropriate cases "since at least 1784."
Citing a variety of eighteenth century cases, the Supreme Court then noted the general common law rule regarding the recoverability of punitive damages extended to claims arising under general maritime law. Lastly, the court recognized the seaman's right to receive maintenance and cure is part of general maritime law and dates back to the early eighteenth century.
Atlantic Sounding argued the right to recover punitive damages is governed by the Jones Act which was enacted to provide rights to seaman who were injured on the job and does not specifically provide for punitive damages. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held the Jones Act preserved common law causes of action such as maintenance and cure, and was meant to supplement them with a statutory cause of action for negligence, not to limit or eliminate them. Accordingly, the Court held the Jones Act does not provide the only remedy for the injured seaman. Rather, the language of the statute providing the injured seaman with the right to "elect to bring a civil action against the employer" demonstrates other remedies are still available, such as the common law claim for maintenance and cure and the attendant right to recover punitive damages.