Louisiana Law Blog

by Bradley C. Myers

In a major victory for business interests involved in maritime operations and what many commentators say is a harbinger of things to come, the United States Supreme Court recently struck down the $2.5 billion punitive damage award against ExxonMobil in a case involving claims for individual economic damages filed by landowners, native Alaskans and commercial fisherman following the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez. See Exxon Shipping Company, et al v. Grant Baker, et al, 554 U.S. ____(June 25, 2008).  The Court determined that the upper limit for punitive damages in maritime cases was a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages and sent the case back to the appellate court to reduce the punitive damage award to $507.5 million which was the amount of compensatory damages (those agreed upon in settlement and those awarded following trial) that the trial court determined were relevant for purposes of determining punitive damages.

by Michael J. O'Brien

In the recent case of Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., et al., No. 05-300963, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed its long standing decision that a watercraft under construction is not a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act.

The determination of whether a vessel is “in navigation” is a critical part of the “seaman status” analysis. Congress did not define the term “seaman” when it passed the Jones Act. Thus, it has been left to the Courts to interpret and define that term. The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent holding defines a “seaman” as an “employee whose duties contribute to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and who has connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and nature.” Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515, U.S. 347, 354 (1995).  

by Michael J. O'Brien

The Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) is a new security measure established by Congress through the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) to ensure that individuals who pose a threat do not gain unescorted access to secure areas of the nation’s maritime transportation system. The TWIC is a tamper-resistant “smart card” containing an individual’s biometric (fingerprint) template to allow for a positive link between the card itself and the individual. The TWIC card is valid for five years.  

Workers who require unescorted access to secure areas of ports, vessels, and outer continental shelf facilities will require a TWIC card. This includes mariners holding Coast Guard issued credentials, non-credentialed mariners in a vessel crew, facility employees who work in a secure area, truckers bringing/picking up cargo at a facility, agents, port chaplains, longshoremen, drayage truckers, surveyors, chandlers, and other maritime professionals. Facility security officers and personnel responsible for security duties are also required to obtain a TWIC card. The category of “other marine professionals” would, in this author’s opinion, include attorneys and their experts who may enter a port or other secure area to inspect vessels. 

by Stephen C. Hanemann

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a single standard of causation now applies when assessing the negligence of an employer and employee under FELA. Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Timothy Sorrell, 127 S.Ct. 799, 166 L.Ed. 2d 638(1/10/07) (U.S. Reporter citation unavailable).  Because the Jones Act is modeled closely upon FELA’s statutory language, federal courts tend to apply the same analysis of negligence issues arising under both statutes. It appears that the Sorrell decision supports the conclusion of earlier maritime cases indicating that a Jones Act employer is held to the same standard of causation in a negligence analysis as his seaman-employee

by Stephen C. Hanemann

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally held that a shipowner-employer may pursue a claim for reimbursement of costs for damage to property against its negligent seaman-employee. Withhart v. Otto Candies, 431 F.3d 840 (5^th Cir. 2005). The seaman-employee in Witthart was a mate, or relief captain, who allegedly left the wheel house to attend to personal business while in command of the vessel. During his absence, the vessel, navigating through congested waters with no captain at the helm, collided with and damaged another vessel. 

by Stephen C. Hanemann

The issue of recovery of non-pecuniary damages [1] by a Jones Act seaman is one that often confronts both the seaman’s employer and non-employer third-parties from whom damages are sought. No case sets forth a more succinct resolution of this issue than Scarborough v. ClemcoInd., 391 F.3d 660 (5^th Cir. 2004). Under the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Scarborough and its progeny, both Jones Act employers and non-employer third-parties sued by either a seaman or his survivors are able to rest easy knowing that they will not have to pay non-pecuniary damages – at least for now considering that no case has given negative treatment to the Scarborough decision.