A Watery Grave for Unseaworthiness Punitive Damages: McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C.

• Author: Phillip M. Smith
• Position: J.D./D.C.L., 2016, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.
• Pages: 619-659

2. The Jones Act and Unseaworthiness are Intimately Limited to One Indemnity ............................................... 650 3. Sailing in the Occupied the Waters of Congressional Action .............................................................................. 652 C. No Distinction Should Exist Between Personal Injury and Wrongful Death ...................................................................... 654 1. No Distinction Under the Jones Act ................................ 655 2. No Distinction Under the Miles Uniformity Principle .... 656 D. The Fifth Circuit Sets the Right Course for Unseaworthiness Punitive Damages ...................................... 657 Conclusion .................................................................................... 658 INTRODUCTION Life on the high seas was not easy for seamen, as this life involved cruel treatment by masters and a lack of regulation. 1 Historically, this class of maritime workers has been entitled to special judicial protections as the wards of admiralty. 2 Although admiralty courts understandably became a shield for these workers in turbulent times, a seaman today is no longer thrown into the same rough waters. Congress has legislated extensively in the area of maritime tort remedies, 3 and employers have responded by making worker safety a major goal of the maritime shipping industry. 4 Consequently, courts should no longer use the rocky waters of the past as justification to expand claims and remedies when the seas are much calmer. One remedy that courts have recently expanded is the availability of punitive damages to seamen. 5 In Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend , 6 the United States Supreme Court held that seamen were entitled under general maritime law to recover punitive damages for their employer’s intentional failure to pay maintenance and cure—a remedy that includes medical and living expenses arising out of an accident or illness that occurs during the seaman’s employment. 7 The Court based its decision on the Copyright 2015, by PHILLIP M. SMITH. 1. See infra Part II.B.1. 2. See Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 417 (2009). 3. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 27 (1990). 4. See generally Stanley A. Millan & Patrick J. Veters, Deck the Hulls with OSHA , 2 LOY. MAR. L.J. 44 (2003) (discussing the dual regulatory authority of the United States Coast Guard and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the field of maritime worker safety). 5. Townsend , 557 U.S. at 424. 6. 557 U.S. 404. 7. Id. at 424. 2015] NOTE 621 alleged historic availability of such damages and the absence of statutory preemption. 8 It is unclear whether the reasoning of this decision extends to allow recovery of punitive damages for unseaworthiness—the general maritime-law duty imposed on a shipowner to provide a seaworthy vessel. 9 Recently, in McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C. , 10 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that unseaworthiness punitive damages are unavailable. 11 The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari, ensuring that the availability of unseaworthiness punitive damages and the scope of the Court’s reasoning in Townsend will remain unsettled outside the Fifth Circuit. 12 As district courts in other circuits have allowed punitive recovery for unseaworthiness, the Court should resolve this important issue and establish uniformity throughout the country. 13 Otherwise, the scattered availability of unseaworthiness punitive damages will have a detrimental impact on maritime shipping, an industry that is responsible for transporting the majority of the world’s goods. 14 In McBride , the Fifth Circuit correctly concluded that unseaworthiness punitive damages should not be available to seamen for three reasons. 15 First, the reasoning of Townsend does not extend to unseaworthiness, because no significant history of unseaworthiness punitive damages exists, and the failure to pay maintenance and cure is a fundamentally different legal claim. 16 Second, the unavailability of punitive damages under the Jones Act 17 —a statutory negligence action for seamen—should be extended to unseaworthiness because the two claims typically involve a 8. Id. at 424–25. 9. Compare Snyder v. L & M Botruc Rental, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 2d 728, 737 (E.D. La. 2013) (holding that unseaworthiness punitive damages are unavailable under general maritime law), with Wagner v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, 2010 A.M.C. 2469, 2483 (D. Haw. 2010) (holding that unseaworthiness punitive damages are available under general maritime law). 10. 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). 11. Id. at 384 (holding that Miles controlled their decision). 12. McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 135 S. Ct. 2310 (2015). 13. Compare Snyder , 924 F. Supp. 2d at 737, with Wagner , 2010 A.M.C. at 2483. 14. See McBride , 768 F.3d at 401 (Clement, J., concurring) (“Given the sizeable percentages of the world’s goods that travel on ships, and the fact that the prices of the remainder of the world’s goods are indirectly influenced by the prices of the goods that do travel on ships ( e.g. , oil prices ultimately affect the price of a vast range of items), the decision in this case needs to have only the minutest impact on shipping prices to have a significant aggregate cost for consumers. In light of the potentially sizable impact, this court should not venture too far and too fast in these largely uncharted waters without a clear signal from Congress.”). 15. Id. at 384. 16. See infra Part III.A. 17. 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (2012). 622 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 76 single legal wrong. 18 Third, the court in McBride properly determined that courts should not distinguish the availability of unseaworthiness punitive damages between injured seamen and wrongful-death representatives. 19 To preserve uniformity in admiralty and protect the interests of maritime commerce, the Supreme Court should address this issue and hold that unseaworthiness punitive damages are unavailable. 20 Part I of this Note provides background on the powers of Congress and the federal courts to create admiralty law and explicates the specific remedies that these branches have made available to seamen. Part II explains the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in McBride and chronicles the uncertain history of maritime punitive damages. Finally, Part III analyzes whether unseaworthiness punitive damages should be available and concludes that the Fifth Circuit reached the correct result in McBride . I. THE ROLE OF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS IN CALMING THE STORMY SEAS The legislative and judicial branches have a concurrent role in shaping admiralty law. 21 Determining the remedies available to an injured seaman is an important issue in admiralty law that the Constitution requires these institutions to resolve. 22 Those remedies exist under both statutes 23 and judge-made common law; 24 however, whether the responsibility to expand these claims belongs to Congress or the courts remains unclear. A. The Scope of Admiralty Jurisdiction The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution as granting the federal government the power to determine the substantive law in admiralty. 25 In the United States, two primary sources of maritime law exist: general maritime common law, which the federal courts developed 18. See infra Part III.B. 19. See infra Part III.C. 20. See infra Part III.D. 21. See S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 215 (1917) (“[I]n the absence of some controlling statute the general maritime law as accepted by the federal courts constitutes part of our national law applicable to matters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.”). 22. See infra Part I.B. 23. See, e.g. , The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (2012). 24. See, e.g. , The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 175 (1903). 25. Jensen , 244 U.S. at 215 (“Considering our former opinions, it must now be accepted as settled doctrine that in consequence of these provisions Congress has paramount power to fix and determine the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country.”). 2015] NOTE 623 under the authority of the Admiralty Clause of the Constitution, 26 and statutory maritime law that Congress enacted. 27 In the absence of a controlling statute by Congress, judge-made common law governs admiralty. 28 The interplay and seemingly concurrent authority in this area causes conflicts to arise between Congress and the federal courts. 29 Although maritime tort law in early America consisted mostly of judge-made common law, 30 federal statutes now dominate this subset of admiralty. 31 Recently, the Court has advocated for judicial restraint in areas where Congress has passed legislation, speaking specifically to the balance between Congressional statutes and judge-made maritime common law. 32 The Court acknowledged that Congress “retains superior authority in these matters, and an admiralty court must be vigilant not to overstep the well-considered boundaries imposed by federal legislation.” 33 Critics claim that this reasoning was a complete departure from the 26. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (“The judicial Power shall extend . . . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction . . . .”). 27. 46 U.S.C. § 30104; see also Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 360–61 (1959); but see William H. Theis, United States Admiralty Law as an Enclave of Federal Common Law , 23 TUL. MAR. L.J. 73, 75 (1998) (“The Constitution contemplates that, before Congress enacted a single statute, there was an already existing body of maritime law. The historical understanding was that federal courts had the constitutional authority to declare admiralty law only to the extent that they dealt with issues recognized by other maritime countries as calling for a specialized body of law necessary to satisfy the needs of maritime commerce. Although admiralty law was not frozen as of 1789, it...