Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend
174 L. Ed. 2d 382, 557 US 404, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4732 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injured seaman may recover punitive damages under general maritime law for an employer's willful and wanton failure to pay maintenance and cure, as this traditional remedy was not displaced by the Jones Act.
Facts:
- Edgar L. Townsend was a crew member on the Motor Tug Thomas, a vessel owned by petitioner Atlantic Sounding Co.
- While working, Townsend fell on the steel deck of the tugboat.
- As a result of the fall, Townsend injured his arm and shoulder.
- Townsend alleged that Atlantic Sounding advised him that it would not provide him with maintenance and cure for his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Atlantic Sounding Co. filed an action for declaratory relief in a federal district court regarding its maintenance and cure obligations.
- Respondent Edgar L. Townsend filed a separate suit, and counterclaims in the declaratory action, under the Jones Act and general maritime law, seeking punitive damages.
- The District Court consolidated the cases.
- Petitioners moved to dismiss the punitive damages claim, but the District Court denied the motion.
- The District Court certified the question for an interlocutory appeal.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the claim for punitive damages could proceed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May an injured seaman recover punitive damages under general maritime law for his employer’s willful and wanton failure to pay maintenance and cure?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. An injured seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer's willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. Historically, punitive damages have been an available remedy in general maritime law actions for wanton or willful conduct. The common-law duty to provide maintenance and cure to injured seamen is a centuries-old principle, and pre-Jones Act case law indicates that damages with a punitive element were available for its breach. The Jones Act, enacted in 1920, supplemented existing maritime remedies rather than replacing them; it gave seamen an 'election' of remedies, preserving their common-law causes of action. This case is distinguishable from Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. because, unlike the wrongful death action in Miles, both the maintenance and cure cause of action and the availability of punitive damages were well-established common law principles that predated the Jones Act, and the Act does not speak directly to their elimination.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No. An injured seaman should not be able to recover punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure. Under the uniformity principle established in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., courts developing general maritime law should be guided by congressional policy expressed in related statutes. A claim for personal injury resulting from the willful denial of maintenance and cure is functionally equivalent to a claim that can be brought under the Jones Act. The Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), under which courts have consistently held that only compensatory, not punitive, damages are available. To maintain uniformity between these parallel causes of action, punitive damages should be disallowed under the general maritime law claim as well. The historical evidence for pre-Jones Act punitive damage awards in maintenance and cure cases is too 'slim' and ambiguous to override this powerful principle of statutory uniformity.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of traditional, judicially-created maritime remedies in an era of extensive federal legislation. It limits the reach of the 'uniformity principle' from Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., clarifying that statutes like the Jones Act do not silently abrogate well-established, pre-existing common law rights unless Congress speaks directly to the issue. The ruling provides seamen with a significant tool to compel employers to honor their maintenance and cure obligations by exposing them to the risk of punitive damages for willful or wanton refusals. This holding preserves a distinct feature of general maritime law and prevents the Jones Act from being interpreted as a ceiling on all remedies for injured seamen.
