Maritime Damages for Wrongful Death

Maritime Damages for Wrongful Death of Seaman May Include Nonpecuniary Loss for Seaman Against Nonemployer. The Eastern District opinion in the case of In re: Denet Towing Service, F. Supp. (E.D. La. May 21, 1999), may now cast doubt on the understood limitations and uniformity for damages in maritime wrongful death cases of seamen after Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 111 S.Ct. 317 (1990). In Denet, a seaman employed by R&B Falcon Workover Company was killed in Louisiana territorial waters, allegedly by the negligence of a nonemployer, third party Denet Towing, when Denet's tug operator pushed a barge into the drilling rig vessel on which the seaman was working. The beneficiaries sued Denet Towing for both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss, including loss of love and affection, and for punitive damages under the general maritime law. Denet moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the claims for damages for nonpecuniary loss of love and affection and punitive damages. The district court recognized that the issue was whether the prohibition in Miles as to a Jones Act seaman's recovery under general maritime law for nonpecuniary damages against his employer was applicable to nonemployer, third party tortfeasors. The court claimed that the Miles case did not address the seaman's action against nonemployers, which is not accurate. In Miles, the prohibition was made applicable to both the seaman's employer and the vessel owner, which was not the employer of the seaman who was killed. In any event, the district court denied Denet's motion for summary judgment, stating that it was declining to extend Miles beyond seaman-employer relationships because the need for uniformity did not extend to non-Jones Act defendants. The plaintiff was allowed to maintain the nonpecuniary claims for loss of love and affection and punitive damages against Denet. The court's ruling seems to rely on its dislike of the ancient cases that disallowed nonpecuniary damages for Jones Act seamen without an express intent being stated by Congress when the same was enacted. Unfortunately, the court did not consider the effect of tort contribution claims between co-negligent tortfeasors as a need for uniformity of damages. Thus, the proportionately negligent Jones Act employer will be asked to contribute with the negligent nonemployer tortfeasor towards the nonpecuniary damages awarded against the nonemployer tortfeasor, effectively negating Miles's mandate for uniformity. The ramifications of this district court decision could be far reaching.