In the Matter of the Complaint of Osage Marine Services, Inc.
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings 26 is denied.. Signed by Honorable Carol E. Jackson on 3/5/12. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF
OSAGE MARINE SERVICES, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:10-CV-1674 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Osage Marine Services,
Inc. for judgment on the pleadings. Claimant Craig Woodfin opposes the motion, and
the issues are fully briefed.
I. Background
Plaintiff owns the M/V Carrie Elizabeth, a horsepower towboat that provides
barge switching and towing services on the Mississippi River. Woodfin was employed
as a mate on the towboat. On July 1, 2010, Woodfin sustained injuries to his left foot
when it came in contact with a deckfitting on a barge that the towboat was preparing
to switch. On September 9, 2010, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Limitation
of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501-30512, alleging that claimant’s
injuries were not caused by plaintiff or plaintiff’s employees. Plaintiff seeks exoneration
or limitation of liability, for any loss, damages, or injury incurred by claimant. On
October 29, 2010, Woodfin filed an answer and claims, asserting that plaintiff was
negligent, failed to provide maintenance and cure, and operated an unseaworthy
vessel.
1
Claimant seeks punitive damages on all claims.
A claim for maintenance and cure concerns the vessel owner’s obligation to provide
food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman injured while serving the ship. Lewis v.
Lewis & Clark Marine Inc., 531 U.S. 438,441 (2001)(citation omitted).
1
Unseaworthiness is a form of strict liability that requires the owner of a vessel to
Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(c),
with respect to claimant’s prayer for punitive damages on his unseaworthiness claim.
II. Legal Standard
A motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings challenges the
legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings. See Irish Lesbian and Gay Org. v.
Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 644 (2nd Cir.1998). When considering a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, the court must accept as true all factual allegations set forth in the
complaint and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
drawing all inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610
(8th Cir. 2006). "Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when there is no
dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Ashley County, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009)
(citing Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990)).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the general maritime law does not permit the recovery of
punitive damages for claims based on the doctrine of unseaworthiness. In support of
this argument, plaintiff points to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miles
v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990). In Miles, the mother of a deceased seaman
attempted to recover damages for loss of society and lost future earnings in a wrongful
death action against her son’s employer. Id. at 320. The issue before the Court was
whether such damages were available under the general maritime law. The Court held
that damages for loss of society and lost of future earnings were not available in
wrongful death actions because the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act
ensure that a vessel and its appurtenant equipment and appliances are reasonably fit for her
intended use. Usner v. Luckenback Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494,499 (1971)
2
(DOHSA) only provide recovery for pecuniary damages. Id. at 325-327. According to
the Court, the Jones Act and DOHSA incorporate the substantive recovery provisions
of the older Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which only provides recovery for
pecuniary loss. Id. at 325. Therefore, the Court reasoned that by incorporating FELA
unaltered into the Jones Act, “Congress must have intended to incorporate the
pecuniary limitation on damages as well.” Id. Thus, the Court found that it would be
inconsistent with congressional intent to expand upon the remedies in wrongful death
actions by providing recovery for loss of society and lost of future earnings. Id. at 328.
Plaintiff argues that the Court’s reasoning in Miles applies to the recovery of
punitive damages in unseaworthiness claims. Plaintiff contends that punitive damages
are not available in unseaworthiness actions because non-pecuniary damages are not
recoverable under the Jones Act, and therefore, it would be inconsistent to award such
damages under general maritime law. To further support its argument, plaintiff relies
on two cases from the First and Sixth Circuits prohibiting punitive damages in
unseaworthiness claims. See. Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 15 F.3d 200, 203 (1st Cir.
1994)(“Under the analysis prescribed in [Miles], an admiralty court may not extend the
remedies available in an unseaworthiness action under general maritime law to include
punitive damages or damages for loss of parental or spousal society.”); Miller v.
American President Lines, LTD, 989 F. 2d 1450,1458 (6th Cir. 1993)(“It has been the
unanimous judgment of the courts since before the enactment of the Jones Act that
punitive damages are not recoverable under the [FELA]. Punitive damages are not
therefore recoverable under the Jones Act.”)
3
Claimant argues that Miles applies only to wrongful death actions, not to cases
involving personal injury. Furthermore, claimant contends that Horsley and Miller have
been overruled by the recent Supreme Court decision in Atlantic Sounding Co. Inc v.
Townsend, 129 S. Ct. 2561 (2009).
In Atlantic Sounding, the Court held that a
seaman, as a matter of general maritime law, could seek punitive damages in a
maintenance and cure claim. Id. at 2571. In coming to this conclusion the Court
reviewed the history of punitive damages under common law and federal maritime law.
Based on that review, the Court determined that “punitive damages have long been
available at common law,” and that “the common-law tradition of punitive damages
extends to maritime claims.” Id. at 2569. The Court then reasoned that because
neither the Jones Act nor any other federal legislation addresses maintenance and cure
or its remedy, there is no evidence that punitive damages are an inappropriate remedy
for maintenance and cure claims. Id. at 2571. Therefore, the Court held that a
seaman “is entitled to pursue punitive damages unless Congress has enacted
legislation departing from this common-law undertaking.” Id. at 2569.
The Court also clarified how federal courts should interpret the decision in Miles.
The Court determined that the notion that Miles limits remedies in maritime cases
involving death or personal injury is too broad. Id. at 2572. Instead, the Court
emphasized that Miles deals with whether general maritime law should provide a
remedy for wrongful death actions where damages for such actions have been limited
by Congress. Id. Atlantic Sounding, however grapples with a completely different
issue. Unlike in Miles, Atlantic Sounding deals with a cause of action (maintenance and
cure) and remedy (punitive damages) that has not been addressed or limited by
4
Congress. Therefore, the Court found that the ruling in Miles does not limit a seaman’s
recovery of punitive damages in maintenance and cure claims. Id.
Claimant argues that Atlantic Sounding permits the recovery of punitive
damages, unless Congress has enacted legislation stating otherwise.
Because
Congress has not limited the remedies available in unseaworthiness claims, claimant
contends that punitive damages are available in this action.
Following the analysis of Atlantic Sounding, the Court concludes that punitive
damages are available under general maritime law for unseaworthiness claims. Here,
as in Atlantic Sounding, unseaworthiness is a general maritime action that was well
established before the passage of the Jones Act. Furthermore, punitive damages were
well established as a remedy in general maritime law before the passage of the Jones
Act. Id. at 2569. Neither the Jones Act nor any other federal statute has addressed
or limited the availability of punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims.
The Court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
[#26] is denied.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of March, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?