Melancon v. Gaubert Oil Company, Inc.
2:17-cv-02905
E.D. La.Aug 10, 2017Background
- Dwayne Melancon, a Jones Act seaman, alleges he was injured aboard the tug LOW LAND #5 during an allision while pushing a barge on August 24, 2016.
- Melancon claims his injuries (left wrist and lumbar spine) resulted from steering, machinery, or electrical failures on the tug.
- Plaintiffs sued the vessel owner Low Land and time-charterer/employer Gaubert Oil under general maritime law and the Jones Act, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages (including punitive damages); Melancon’s wife and children assert loss-of-consortium and related claims.
- Low Land moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for non-pecuniary damages against it, arguing such damages are unavailable to a seaman or his dependents against a third-party non-employer under general maritime law.
- The district court considered Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent (Miles, Townsend, Scarborough, McBride) and concluded Miles’s uniformity principle precludes non-pecuniary recovery here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Jones Act seaman can recover non-pecuniary damages (punitive, consortium, love/affection, services) from a non-employer under general maritime law | Melancon seeks non-pecuniary damages for personal injury and his family seeks consortium and related non-pecuniary losses | Low Land contends Miles and Fifth Circuit precedent bar non-pecuniary damages for seamen and their dependents against non-employers | Denied: Court held non-pecuniary damages against Low Land are barred and dismissed those claims with prejudice |
| Whether plaintiffs’ family members may recover loss-of-consortium and similar non-pecuniary damages arising from an injured seaman’s claim | Plaintiffs urge the family’s claims should survive even if the seaman’s non-pecuniary claims do not | Low Land argues family members’ non-pecuniary claims are likewise precluded under controlling precedent | Denied: Court treated family claims like the seaman’s and dismissed them with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (establishes uniformity principle limiting non-pecuniary recovery for seamen under general maritime law)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (permits punitive damages against employer for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure; distinguishes but does not overrule Miles)
- Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1995) (applied Miles to bar certain non-pecuniary recovery)
- Scarborough v. Clemco Indus., 391 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2004) (held seamen and survivors cannot recover non-pecuniary losses from non-employers)
- McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc reaffirmation that punitive and other non-pecuniary damages are barred in Jones Act/seaman injury cases)
- Michel v. Total Transport., Inc., 957 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1992) (held injured seaman’s wife cannot recover loss of consortium in general maritime personal injury action)