Batterton v. Dutra Group
880 F.3d 1089
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Batterton, a deckhand, alleged that a hatch cover blew open while working in navigable waters, crushing his left hand and causing permanent disability.
- The complaint alleges the vessel lacked an exhaust mechanism to relieve pressurized air, rendering it unseaworthy.
- Plaintiff sought punitive damages for unseaworthiness; defendant Dutra Group moved to strike that portion of the prayer.
- The district court denied the motion to strike; the matter was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The Ninth Circuit heard only the question whether punitive damages are available for unseaworthiness under general maritime law (no factfinding on liability or damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are punitive damages available for unseaworthiness under general maritime law? | Punitive damages are historically available in general maritime causes (including unseaworthiness); Evich permits them. | Miles and Fifth Circuit precedent (McBride) imply punitive damages are barred as non-pecuniary under Jones Act-related reasoning. | Yes. Punitive damages are available for unseaworthiness claims under general maritime law. |
| Does Miles v. Apex implicitly overrule Evich v. Morris? | Evich should control in Ninth Circuit; Miles did not address punitive damages and is not irreconcilable. | Miles’ restriction on non-pecuniary recovery suggests limiting remedies under general maritime law, thereby undermining Evich. | Evich remains binding under Miller v. Gammie; Miles is not clearly irreconcilable and does not overrule Evich. |
| Does Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend affect availability of punitive damages? | Townsend reaffirmed that punitive damages historically available in general maritime actions and did not limit that availability. | (Defendant argued any reading of Miles that narrowed remedies should apply.) | Townsend supports availability of punitive damages and undercuts arguments that Miles bars them. |
| Are wrongful-death statutory limits (pecuniary loss) relevant to punitive damages for living seamen’s injury claims? | Statutory wrongful-death limits on pecuniary recovery do not constrain punitive remedies for living injured seamen. | Plaintiff’s recovery arguments should be harmonized with statutory limitations on death actions. | Statutory wrongful-death limitations do not preclude punitive damages in living seamen’s unseaworthiness claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1987) (punitive damages available under general maritime law for unseaworthiness)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (limits loss-of-society and certain survival damages in maritime wrongful-death/survival contexts)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (reaffirmed historical availability of punitive damages in general maritime actions)
- McBride v. Estis Well Service, 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (held punitive damages are non-pecuniary and barred by Jones Act reasoning; divided decision)
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970) (recognized general maritime wrongful-death cause of action and emphasized maritime solicitude for seamen)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (mandates following prior circuit precedent unless clearly irreconcilable with Supreme Court decisions)