Summary
noting that Gaudet has been limited in application "to longshoremen killed or injured in territorial waters"
Summary of this case from McKenzie v. CG Boat Works, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-0704
August 8, 2002
Paul M. Sterbcow, [COR LD NTC], Lewis, Kullman Sterbcow, New Orleans, LA for plaintiffs.
Roy Edward Blanchard, [COR LD NTC], Sidney W. Degan, III, [COR], Degan, Blanchard Nash, New Orleans, LA for defendant.
RULING ON MOTION
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Rec. doc. # 31. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, which was submitted for hearing on August 7, 2002. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Chester Lucas was performing welding services aboard a vessel owned and/or operated by defendant Terral Riverservice, Inc., ("Terral"). He claims that he was injured when the gangway providing access to the vessel collapsed under him. His complaint alleges that defendant "had actual knowledge of the defective condition of the gangway and made a conscious decision not to replace the defective gangway." See ¶ 10 of plaintiffs' complaint. His suit includes a demand for punitive damages under general maritime law in the amount of $500,000.00 for the defendant's "gross negligence".
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages. Defendant does not appear to dispute any of plaintiffs' factual allegations, but simply argues that as a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages under general maritime law.
This matter may be more accurately considered as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(b)(6) is proper only if the pleadings on their face reveal beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief, or if an affirmative defense or other bar to relief appears on the face of the complaint. Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortg. Corp. of America, 938 F.2d 591, 594 (5th cir. 1991). The court must assume that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are true, and must resolve any doubt regarding the sufficiency of plaintiff's claims in his favor. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n., 987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court concludes that under either analysis, the result is the same.
ANALYSIS
A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.3d 265 (1986). In deciding whether a fact issue has been created, we must view the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1999)Terral argues that punitive damages are not recoverable under the general maritime law, citing Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, 59 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1995) and Fairley v. Ocean and Exploration Company, 689 So.2d 736 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1997), or against a non-employer defendant under general maritime law, citing Earhart v. Chevron USA, 852 F. Supp. 515 (E.D. La 1994). Plaintiff responds that Mr. Lucas is a seafarer, a maritime employee covered by the Longshore Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. ("LHWCA"), and as a longshoreman injured in state waters he has a claim for non-pecuniary damages (including punitive damages) under the general maritime law. American Export Dines v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 641 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980); Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974)
It is undisputed that Mr. Lucas was not employed by Terral, or that at the time of his injury, he was, as he alleges, a longshoreman injured in state waters. Nor does defendant dispute that the accident happened as Mr. Lucas alleges.
The cases cited by Terral in support of its argument are inapposite to this case. Guevara and Fairley involved Jones Act claims for maintenance and cure. Earhart involved non-seafarers, fishermen injured when their fishing vessel struck an underwater object, who sued a non-employer. This case falls within those limited actions in which punitive damages may be available to longshoremen injured in territorial waters.
Rutherford v. Mallard Bay Drilling, L.L.C., 2000 WL 805230, (J. Vance, E.D.La. 2000) is on point and provides a thorough analysis of the unique legal issue. A plaintiff's right to damages for negligence pursuant to the LHWCA section 905(b) arises under the general maritime law. Id. at *2 (citing Robertson v. ARCO Oil Gas Co., 766 F. Supp. 535, 538 (W.D. La. 1991). Unlike the Jones Act or the Death on the High Seas Act, the LHWCA does not prevent a longshoreman from recovering nonpecuniary damages. Id. at *3 (citing Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888, 903 (5th Cir.) opinion modified on denial of reh'g by 22 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Bienvenu v. Texaco, Inc. 164 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 1999)
In Gaudet, the Supreme Court allowed a longshoreman's wife to recover for loss of consortium in a maritime wrongful death action. Rutherford, 2000 WL 805230 at *3, citing Gaudet, 414 U.S. at 590. Over the years the Gaudet holding has been strictly limited in its application to longshoremen killed or injured in territorial waters. Id., citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higgingotham 436 U.S. 613, 98 S.Ct. 2010 (1978) (limited Gaudet to deaths in territorial waters); American Export Lines, 446 U.S. 274 (1980) (holding that the wife of a harbor worker injured in state waters could recover loss of consortium); and Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317 (1990) (holding that Gaudet applies only in territorial waters and only to longshoremen)
Finally, in Galveston County Navigation Dist. No. 1 v. Hopson Towing Co., 92 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 1996), the Fifth Circuit observed that punitive damages may still be available in some admiralty contexts. Rutherford 2000 WL 805230 at *4
Judge Vance concluded:
This fact, combined with the Gaudet line of cases allowing longshoremen injured in territorial waters to recover nonpecuniary damages, precludes this Court from holding that punitive damages are unavailable here as a matter of law.
Id.
Following Judge Vance's analysis of the current state of the law in the Fifth Circuit, Mr. Lucas may be entitled to punitive damages under general maritime law. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.