On March 25, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of The Dutra Group v. Batterton. The main question of the case is whether a Jones Act seaman can recover punitive damages in a personal injury suit based on the unseaworthiness of the vessel that he worked on. The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held several years ago that punitive damages are not available under general maritime law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed in Batterton’s case and held that punitive damages are available, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to solve the conflict.

Both parties – employee and employer – believe the case will turn on the interpretation of two previous Supreme Court cases. Seth Waxman, arguing for the employer, invoked the 1990 case of Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. for the suggestion that the Supreme Court should defer to Congress’s statutory law for matters pertaining to seamen’s personal injuries. The Court in that case denied recovery for the non-pecuniary losses of a deceased Jones Act seaman under the general maritime law unseaworthiness doctrine because the Jones Act only allows recovery of past and future loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and disability. During oral argument, Waxman attempted to link the Jones Act with the unseaworthiness doctrine to argue against punitive damages. Justice Sotomayor stated in response that the Jones Act was designed to expand and not contract seamen’s remedies, and the Jones Act was not meant to eliminate common-law remedies.

David Frederick, arguing for the seaman Batterton, argued that general maritime law makes punitive damages available based on the 2009 Supreme Court case of Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, which held that a Jones Act seaman could recover punitive damages for breach of the general maritime obligation of maintenance and cure. Frederick contended that punitive damages had long been available under general maritime law, but Justice Sotomayor interrupted again to distinguish that there is no historical authority authorizing punitive recovery in an unseaworthiness action. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissent in Townsend, seemed to agree with this reasoning. Justice Kavanaugh observed that the court has two ways of looking at the case, through the lens of Miles or Townsend. “The question’s which of those principles to follow here,” he stated.

This case result will inevitably have a big impact on the Louisiana maritime industry, as well as the Louisiana economy in general, which has the one of the largest concentrations of Jones Act employees in the nation, from those working on the Mississippi River to the offshore oil industry. Punitive damages would have the potential to deter some of the worst workplace safety violations on the water, while making available a potentially broad new category of recovery for injured maritime workers in Louisiana.