Seaman’s Remedies Under General Maritime Law

by Lane Powell PC

Lane Powell PC

Ninth Circuit Determines Punitive Damages are Available to an Injured Seaman for General Maritime Law Unseaworthiness Claims.

On January 23, 2018, a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that an injured seaman asserting a general maritime law unseaworthiness claim against a vessel owner is entitled to seek an award of punitive damages.  In Batterton v. Dutra Group, __F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit considered the district court’s certification of the single question of the availability of punitive damages for an injured Jones Act seaman’s general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness. The Panel distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), concluding that an injured seaman is entitled to seek punitive damages against the vessel owner for a general maritime law unseaworthiness claim.

The 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Batterton was a deckhand assigned to a vessel owned and operated by Dutra Group (“Dutra”). During the course of his employment and while the vessel was located in navigable waters, Batterton was struck by a vessel hatch cover, and suffered a disabling crushing injury to his left hand. At the time of Plaintiff’s injury, crewmembers were injecting pressurized air into a vessel compartment located directly below the hatch cover that was not equipped with a pressure relief mechanism.  Ultimately, the increasing pressure below deck blew the hatch cover open, striking Plaintiff. Batterton contended that he suffered a permanent disability as a result of Dutra’s failure to supply a seaworthy vessel properly equipped with a pressure relief valve. 

Batterton filed suit against Dutra in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking relief under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §30104, and asserting a claim for unseaworthiness arising under the federal general maritime law.  Batterton’s complaint asserted a claim for punitive damages against Dutra for the failure to supply a seaworthy vessel under the federal general maritime law. The District Court denied Dutra’s motion to strike Batterton’s punitive damages claim for the unseaworthiness of the Dutra vessel. The U.S. District Court certified the appeal limited to the sole question of the availability of punitive damages for an unseaworthiness claim. 

The Ninth Circuit accepted certification for the interlocutory appeal. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted that both district courts in the Ninth Circuit and circuit courts are in disagreement over the availability of punitive damages to an injured seaman for claims arising under federal general maritime law. The Panel accepted certification to specifically resolve the dispute concerning the extent of damages for general maritime law claims. The Panel carefully distinguished claims arising under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §30104, which prohibits an award of punitive damages.

Since Miles v. Apex Circuit Courts Denied Awards of Punitive Damages to Seamen

In Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1987) — a seaman’s wrongful death case — the Ninth Circuit upheld a punitive damages award under the general maritime law.

[p]unitive damages are available under general maritime law for claims of unseaworthiness, and for failure to pay maintenance and cure.” The court further held that the standard justifying the award of punitive damages was “conduct which manifest ‘reckless or callous disregard’ for the rights of others . . . or ‘gross negligence or actual malice [or] criminal indifference.’

Id. at 258. Four years later, the landmark Supreme Court decision of Miles v. Apex, ruled that there was no recovery for loss of society either under the Jones Act or for a general maritime law action for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman. The Court held: 

Today we restore a uniform rule applicable to all actions for the wrongful death of a seaman, whether under DOHSA, the Jones Act, or general maritime law.

Id. at 33. Miles has been routinely applied by lower courts as prohibiting awards of non-pecuniary damages to Jones Act seaman, including awards of punitive damages under the general maritime law.

Both the First Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have construed the Miles decision as prohibiting an award of punitive damages for an unseaworthiness claim asserted by an injured seaman. In Horsley v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 15 F.3d 200 (1st Cir. 1994), a panel of the First Circuit held that “[a]n admiralty court may not extend the remedies available in an unseaworthiness action under the general maritime law to include punitive damages”. Id. Specifically, the court held that punitive damages were not available to an injured seaman in a general maritime law claim for an injury sustained in territorial waters based upon the Miles v. Apex decision. 

            Twenty years later in McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit, en banc, held:

We took this case en banc to decide whether the seaman plaintiffs in this case, both the injured seamen and the personal representatives of the deceased seaman, can recover punitive damages under either the Jones Act or the general maritime law.  We affirm the district court and conclude that this case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miles v. Apex, which holds that the Jones Act limits a seaman’s recovery to pecuniary losses where liability is predicated on the Jones Act or unseaworthiness.  Because punitive damages are non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages may not be recovered in this case.

Id. The Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), awarding punitive damages to an injured seaman because of the employer’s recalcitrant failure to pay maintenance and cure. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion relied upon the fact that the Supreme Court in Atlantic Sounding clearly recognized that the seaman’s remedy of maintenance and cure is dissimilar to negligence-based actions, reaffirming that “Miles is still good law.” Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit determined that Townsend did not either overrule or restrict the application of Miles.

The Ninth Circuit Rejects the First and Fifth Circuit Positions

Against this backdrop of longstanding and well-established precedent, the Ninth Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal on the sole issue of the availability of punitive damages to an injured seaman.  In addition, the Court evaluated whether its 1987 holding in Evich had been overruled by Miles.  The Panel of the Ninth Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding as an endorsement of punitive damages in general maritime law actions:

Whatever room might be left to support broadening Miles to cover punitive damages was cut off by the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend.  The shipowner in Townsend argued that Miles barred punitive damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. The Court noted that ‘[h]istorically, punitive damages have been available and      awarded in general maritime actions.’  It found that ‘nothing in Miles or the Jones Act eliminates that availability.  Unseaworthiness is a general maritime law action long predating the Jones Act.’

The Panel held that Miles should not be extended to bar punitive damages under the general maritime law for an injured seaman:

It is true, as Dutra contends, that Miles, taken alone, might arguably be read to suggest that the available damages for a general maritime unseaworthiness claim by an injured seaman should be limited to those damages permissible under the Jones Act for wrongful death.  But that is a stretch.

The Panel further relied upon the dissent of the Fifth Circuit’s McBride decision that:

Townsend announced the default rule that punitive damages are available for actions under the general maritime law (such as unseaworthiness).

McBride at 413, n.16. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Evich decision had not been implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court decision in Miles and that punitive damages may be recovered in an unseaworthiness claim by an injured seaman.


The Batterton decision creates an anomaly in the Ninth Circuit that is inconsistent with the uniform refusal of sister circuit courts to award punitive damages to seaman under the federal general maritime law. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will accept review to resolve the split among the circuits and provide further clarity on this issue remains to be seen.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lane Powell PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lane Powell PC

Lane Powell PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.