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.

parison, his work for the appellees was relatively limited, confined to the 1940s-1950s.Nevertheless, Marsh’s experts opined that asbestos aboard the appellee’s vessels contributed to his mesothelioma diagnosis.The appellees moved to exclude plaintiff’s expert reports, arguing that the expert conclusions were unsupported as no evidence showed the decedent was exposed to asbestos aboard their vessels.The appellees also moved for summary judgment. The district court agreed and granted both motions.Plaintiffs appealed.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the expert testimony issue for abuse of discretion and the summary judgment issue de novo.See Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.2d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007); Patel v. Tex. Tech. Univ., 941 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 2019); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).The Fifth Circuit noted, “The Jones Act provides a cause of action in negligence for ‘any seaman’ injured ‘in the course of his employment.’” Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 354 (1995) (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 30104).Critically, it held “Although the Jones Act reduces the burden to prove a toxic substance caused a seaman’s illness, ‘summary judgment is nevertheless warranted when there is a complete absence of proof of an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case.’” United States Ct. of Appeals for the Fifth Cir. Harry F. Marsh v Chas Kurz & Co., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549, at *5 [5th Cir Mar. 7, 2024, No. 23-30460]; In re Cooper/T. Smith, 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir. 1991).Moreover, “If a seaman cannot show he was exposed to a substance aboard a vessel, by definition he cannot show it caused his illness.”See, e.g., Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Co, Inc., 790 F. App’x 6221, 635 (5th Cir. 2019).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.The court determined the appellants failed to make the required threshold showing as they offered no evidence to establish the decedent was exposed to asbestos on the appellee’s vessels.In fact, prior to his death, the decedent testif

The rig was jacked up out of the water with its legs on the seabed. It was stationary, a step away from the shoreside pier.After his accident, Sanchez sued Enterprise and SmartFab in state court under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104. Enterprise and SmartFab removed the case arguing the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1).

189 U.S. 158, 175 (1903).Thus, as things stood in the first decades of the 20th century, a seaman’s only right to sue a vessel owner/employer was for no-fault M&C and the pseudo-strict-liability-based unseaworthiness.This all changed with the passage of the Jones Act in 1920 (currently found at 46 U.S.C. §30104). This statute legislatively overruled The Osceola by specifically creating a stand-alone, statutory negligence cause of action for seamen – outside of the jurisprudentially created M&C and unseaworthiness causes of action – under the same parameters as the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA, 45 U.S.C. §51-59, the federal statute establishing a negligence claim for railroad employees).

After highlighting the lack of historical foundation supporting punitive damage remedies in unseaworthiness claims, the Court discussed the unavailability of punitive damages awards under the Jones Act — for which unseaworthiness serves as a “duplicate and substitute.” The Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims was in direct conflict with Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), limiting recovery of damages for a seaman’s wrongful death under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 to damages for pecuniary losses. Ultimately, the Court deferred to precedent directing the courts to promote uniformity in the federal maritime law, and the lack of Congressional action to provide a right to punitive damages despite recent increases in legislation in the area.

Circumstances may arise where because of the nature of the parties and obligations assumed by each, an otherwise valid gross negligence indemnity obligation may be voided for public policy concerns.Seaman Status Turns on Time Spent Working on a Vessel—Not Time Spent Performing Work that Required the Use of a Vessel. Whether an employee qualifies as a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §30104 et seq., can have significant implications to a risk management program. An injured seaman has significantly broader rights against an allegedly negligent employer than non-seaman, who is generally restricted to state worker's compensation or Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) benefits.

Criswell v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2015 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super., May 18, 2015)Holding: In a claim under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 30104, a plaintiff need only prove whether the employer's negligence played any part, however slight, in causing the injury, not whether the employer's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Granting of Summary Judgment to Defendant Shipping Companies Overturned in Maritime Action, Based on Negligence Standard in Jones ActSuperior Court of Pennsylvania, May 18, 2015May 19, 2015Joseph J. Welter, Jason A. Botticelli and Sean T. StadelmanCase Decisions,Maritime/Admiralty Law,Pennsylvania0In this case brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. 30104, the decedent, Earl Criswell, was allegedly exposed to asbestos during his time as a Merchant Marine aboard various defendants’ vessels. The appellees, Atlantic Richfield Company and Sunoco, Inc. were both granted summary judgment.

Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Reversed Under the Jones Act and Maritime LawSuperior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, March 3, 2015March 3, 2015Joseph J. Welter and Jason A. BotticelliCase Decisions,Maritime/Admiralty Law,New Jersey0In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation and winch brakes aboard various dredges and commercial vessels on which he worked over the years. “[P]laintiff asserted a Jones Act negligence claim under 46 U.S.C.A. § 30104 and a general maritime unseaworthiness claim under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333.” The defendants, Weeks Marine, Inc. and American Atlantic Company, moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish that he was exposed to asbestos aboard these vessels.

Characterizing the questions raised as issues of first impression, Judge Robreno’s ruling is directed at limited types of cases brought under maritime law. Specifically, Judge Robreno ruled that punitive damages may be sought under unseaworthiness claims brought outside of actions under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104, et seq.) and the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) (46 U.S.C. § 30301, et seq.). The ruling harkens back to long standing common law principles definitive of maritime law.