Guevara v. Maritime: caught in the wake of Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.
Author | Alfieri, Mark |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
INTRODUCTION
-
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE
-
The History of Maintenance and Cure
-
Punitive Damages and Maritime Law
-
Punitive Damages and Maintenance and Cure
-
-
MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP.: THE QUESTION OF
UNIFORMITY IN MARITIME LAW
-
Judicial and Congressional Powers over Maritime Law
-
The Struggle Between the Judicial and the Legislative Branches
-
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. and its Progeny
-
-
GUEVARA V. MARITIME: AN OVERBROAD APPLICATION OF
MILES V. APEX MARINE CORP?
-
Guevara v. Maritime
-
Analysis
-
-
CONCLUSION
-
INTRODUCTION
Reversing its previous decision in Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.,(1) the Fifth Circuit has sharply limited recovery in maintenance and cure(2) actions to pecuniary damages in conformity with statutory law.(3) The court denied recovery of punitive damages for the failure to provide maintenance and cure under both tort-based(4) and contractual(5) perspectives. In the former, damages were confined to the limitations of the Jones Act,(6) and in the latter to compensatory damages.(7) The possibility of recovering attorneys' fees was acknowledged, but only upon proof of the defendant's willful and wanton conduct during the course of the underlying litigation.(8)
The Fifth Circuit had previously held in Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.(9) that an award of punitive damages under the general maritime law may be obtained when an employer willfully and callously refuses to pay maintenance and cure to an injured seaman.(10) However, upon rehearing Guevara, the court noted that significant developments in the law of admiralty since the Holmes decision required a rethinking of its position.(11)
One major development is the move toward greater uniformity between statutory and maritime law.(12) The United States Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.(13) held that, because punitive damages for loss of society were precluded under both the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA),(14) they were also precluded under the general maritime law.(15) Miles signaled a judicial unwillingness to extend remedies beyond those allowed under statutory law.(16) Consequently, in re-examining the rationale of Holmes, the Guevara court held that support for Holmes can no longer be sustained.(17)
The purpose of this Comment on the Guevara decision is twofold. First, the Fifth Circuit used an over-broad application of the Miles decision in deciding the second Guevara case. The opinion indicates a judicial aversion to extending remedies beyond those provided by statute, whether the cause of action is covered by statute or not. Second, the decision represents a retreat from activist judicial decision making. While some courts interpret their admiralty authority as equal to that of Congress, this court showed deference.
Analyzing Guevara requires a brief look at the history of punitive damages, a review of maintenance and cure, and an examination of their place in the general maritime law. This Comment will also discuss the move toward uniformity between the maritime and statutory laws that recently culminated in the Miles decision and consider its influence on Guevara. Finally, the Guevara opinion itself will be critiqued.
-
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE
-
The History of Maintenance and Cure
Maintenance and cure is an ancient admiralty law doctrine which has its origins in the medieval period.(18) In the United States, the concept was first discussed by Justice Story(19) in Harden v. Gordon.(20) Put simply, maintenance and cure is an obligation imposed on the ship owner to care for his crew when they become injured or ill.(21) "Maintenance" is the right of an injured or ill crew member to food and lodging, while "cure" is the right to medical attention and treatment.(22) The right to maintenance and cure begins when the seaman first sigma on to service and continues until discharge.(23) It is a unique right that arises from special dangers and sacrifices involved in maritime employment.(24) As Justice Story explained:
Seamen are by the peculiarity of their lives liable to sudden
sickness from change of climate, exposure to perils, and
exhausting labour. They are generally poor and friendless, and
acquire habits of gross indulgence, carelessness, and
improvidence. If some provision be not made for them in
sickness at the expense of the ship, they must often in foreign
ports suffer the accumulated evils of disease, and poverty, and
sometimes perish from the want of suitable nourishment. Their
common earnings in many instances are wholly inadequate to
provide for the expenses of sickness; and if liable to be so
applied, the great motives for good behavior might be ordinarily
taken away by pledging their future as well as past wages for the
redemption of the debt.(25)
The right to maintenance and cure has been likened both to workers' compensation(26) and contract right.(27) Commentators Gilmore and Black note that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure arises from the fact of employment; it is "the fact that the seaman is engaged in the service of the ship which creates the right and not the form of contract."(28) Moreover, if a contractual term of employment sought to waive the right to maintenance and cure it would "unquestionably be held void."(29)
Injuries that result from the master's failure to provide adequate maintenance and cure may permit recovery of full tort damages.(30) If the master or ship owner fails to provide the proper level of care and the seaman's condition worsens, the ship owner is liable not only for the increased medical expense and maintenance required, but also for any personal injury that results.(31) As this Comment will demonstrate, the question of whether punitive damages are recoverable for failing to provide maintenance and cure has been a divisive issue among federal courts.
-
Punitive Damages and Maritime Law
Punitive damages date back to "early times in America and in England."(32) First used as a remedy in exceptional and extreme cases, over time punitive damages were "expanded upon and modified ... up to the present inundation of recent cases."(33) The Supreme Court first recognized the recoverability of punitive damages in the oft cited case(34) of The Amiable Nancy,(35) when it recounted the outrageous conduct of the officers and crew of the American privateer Amiable Nancy toward a commandeered vessel:
[I]f this were a suit against the original wrong-doers, it
might be proper to go yet further, and visit upon them
in the shape of exemplary damages, the proper
punishment which belongs to such lawless misconduct.
But it is to be considered, that this is a suit against the
owners of the privateer, upon whom the law has, from
motives of policy, devolved a responsibility for the
conduct of the officers and crew employed by them, and
yet, from the nature of the service, they can scarcely
ever be able to secure to themselves an adequate
indemnity in cases of loss. They are innocent of the
demerit of this transaction, having neither directed it,
nor countenanced it, nor participated in it in the
slightest degree. Under such circumstances, we are of
opinion that they are bound to repair all the real
injuries and personal wrongs sustained by the
libellants, but they are not bound to the extent of
vindictive damages.(36)
The right to recover punitive damages depending on the complicity of the defendant was recognized in dicta in a number of early federal cases.(37) One example is Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Prentice.(38) In Prentice, the Supreme Court cited English law dating from "before the American Revolution" in holding that "[t]he recovery of damages, beyond compensation for the injury received, by way of punishing the guilty, and as an example to deter others from offending in like manner, is here clearly recognized."(39) Citing Justice Story's reasoning in The Amiable Nancy, the court in Prentice said:
A principal, therefore, though of course liable to make
compensation for injuries done by his agent within the
scope of his employment, cannot be held liable for
exemplary or punitive damages, merely by reason of
wanton, oppressive or malicious intent on the part of
the agent. This is clearly shown by the judgment of this
court in the case of The Amiable Nancy.(40)
These cases all hold that some level of employer complicity is required before punitive damages would be assessed against a employer.(41) Not until 1859, in Gallagher v. The Yankee,(42) did an appellate court actually allow punitive damages in an admiralty case.(43) In this case, exemplary damages were awarded against a ship's master who had illegally transported the plaintiff against his will to the Hawaiian Islands in compliance with a San Francisco vigilante committee's sentence of banishment.(44)
-
Punitive Damages and Maintenance and Cure
Vaughan v. Atkinson(45) is the seminal case on punitive damages in a maintenance and cure action--even though the question of punitive damages never actually reached the Court.(46) Vaughan served on Atkinson's vessel and was discharged at the end of a three month voyage.(47) After his termination, Vaughan was hospitalized, treated for tuberculosis, and released some three months later.(48) He remained on hospital outpatient status for over two years.(49) Vaughan later sent his clinical record to his former employer seeking reimbursement for maintenance and cure, but he never received confirmation of his claim.(50) After nearly two years, Vaughan hired an attorney at a fifty percent contingent fee to help him recover on his claim.(51) The Supreme Court ultimately found Vaughan's employer to be "callous" and "recalcitrant" in its attitude, having made no investigation of the merit of the seaman's personal injury claim.(52)
Vaughan sought recovery for exemplary damages, maintenance and cure, and for attorneys' fees.(53) The District Court disallowed his claim...
-
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.