On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision on punitive damages in unseaworthiness cases. The case is Dutra Group v. Batterton, No. 18-266. In deciding the case, the Court looked toward two of its precedents: Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), and Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U. S. 404 (2009). Miles encourages federal courts to look primarily to “legislative enactments for policy guidance” when exercising its common law authority over maritime and admiralty cases, while recognizing that such remedies may be supplemented to “achieve the uniform vindication” of the policies served by the relevant statutes. Miles, 498 U.S. at 27. In Atlantic Sounding, the Court allowed the recovery of punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure, but justified the decision based on a history of awarding punitive damages for certain maritime torts, including failure to pay including maintenance and cure. 557 U.S. at 413-414.

The plaintiff cited some historical decisions awarding punitive damages for unseaworthiness, but the Court found they either did not contain extensive discussions relevant to punitive damages or did not involve unseaworthiness. The Court resolved to maintain  uniformity with Congress’s clearly expressed policies, particularly those in the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920), which incorporates the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Early decisions held FELA damages to be strictly compensatory and that punitive damages are not available.            

In Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, she noted that punitive damages are not categorically barred in unseaworthiness actions based on the logic of Atlantic Sounding. She also acknowledged that while there is no evidence that courts have awarded punitive damages for unseaworthiness before the twentieth century, there is also no basis for saying punitive damages are never available in unseaworthiness actions. The majority urged that punitive damages  in unseaworthiness actions would create “bizarre disparities,” but Justice Ginsburg believes the real disparity comes from the Court itself due to it making punitive damages available for the “willful and wanton breach of the duty to provide maintenance and cure, but not for similarly culpable breaches of the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.”