American tort law recognizes the concept of punitive damages, wherein a court can direct a defendant to pay a plaintiff damages that are above actual damages. These damages are called punitive damages, which were created to punish the defendant’s egregious behavior. While punitive damages are controversial and different locales have a variety of standards in measuring them, they exist conceptually.
In 1920, the United States Congress passed the US Merchant Marine Act, better known as the Jones Act, which is still in effect today. The Jones Act made sweeping changes to the maritime industry. It touches on numerous aspects of maritime law, including tort damages. Under the Jones Act, someone injured in a maritime accident, which is construed broadly, is entitled to maintenance and cure (see a previous blog for explanation of maintenance and cure). Maintenance and cure replaces typical tort damages where the injured party sues for certain damages by proving certain acts.
The Jones Act is silent with respect to punitive damages. As mentioned, it replaces the “regular” tort regime with a maintenance and cure regime. Does this mean that punitive damages are also replaced, so that no punitive damages can be awarded when the defendant acted egregiously and would otherwise be subject to punitive damages? Or does maintenance and cure merely replace common law tort damages but not make changes to other aspects of tort law? This question was presented to the Supreme Court in 2009 in the Townsend case.
Townsend
Townsend was a seaman who worked on ships. He was hurt in a maritime accident. He submitted a claim for maintenance and cure and was approved. He repeatedly requested payment but was denied, despite being approved. He brought suit against his employer in the District Court, alleging non-payment of maintenance and cure and also for punitive damages. The defendant disputed the punitive damages claim, reasoning that the Jones Act, which superseded common law tort rules, had not enacted a punitive damages scheme. Therefore, claimed the defendant, Townsend was not eligible for punitive damages. The District Court sided with Townsend. The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, surmising that although the Jones Act made no reference to punitive damages, it was not going to exclude such damages either. While maintenance and cure replaces common law tort damage, it does not replace all aspects of law with respect to maritime claims. The Court cited other cases that upheld common law rights even though such rights were not explicit in the Jones Act. Therefore, Townsend was not barred by the Jones Act for requesting punitive damages.
The Townsend case demonstrates a strict reading of the Jones Act. While the Jones Act certainly created new rules and disposed of old rules, laws not addressed by the Jones Act, according to Townsend, remain in force.
Are you involved in the maritime business? You need a partner who understands the intricacies of maritime law. Partner with the Kolodny law firm, experienced maritime attorneys.
Alan Kolodny is committed to representing injured clients in Texas and throughout the United States. Alan earned his B.A. from Rice University and his J.D. from Southern Methodist University.
He focuses his practice on representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases involving the following matters: maritime and offshore accidents, including those under the Jones Act; automobile and 18-wheeler truck accidents; and industrial site accidents, work-related accidents, and claims for injured railroad workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
Loading...