ARKANSAS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ADRESSES WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS OF LONGSHOREMAN; NON-PECUINARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTAL STATE CLAIMS

By: Meredith Bro

Nieves v. Cooper Marine & Timberlands Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127487, 2017 WL 3473807 (Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, Aug. 11, 2017).This suit concerns claims arising out of a fatal accident suffered by a longshoreman while unloading a barge on the Mississippi River in Arkansas. The issues involved in this case include non-pecuniary and punitive damages under General Maritime Law (“GML”) and whether Arkansas State law may supplement the GML. In ruling on several Motions for Summary Judgment raised by the defendants, the district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas addressed the following:First, the court addressed the question of whether the decision of Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet—which held that a widow of a longshoreman who died aboard a vessel in navigable waters could recover non-pecuniary damages for loss of consortium were viable under the GML action for wrongful death recognized in Morgane v. States Marine Lines, Inc.—after the Supreme Court in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp limited the scope of Gaudet damages—applying only to longshoreman killed territorial waters. Here, the court concluded that the decedent was a longshoreman in territorial waters, thus non-pecuniary damages could be recovered.Next, the court addressed whether punitive damages could be recovered under GML. Although the court held that claims for punitive damages are governed by GML and are viable, it dismissed the estate representative’s claim. In holding that the facts did not rise to the level of conduct which would give rise to punitive damages under GML, the court concluded that Arkansas State law required an even higher standard to recover punitive damages, thus the claim could not be assessed.Lastly, as the decedent was not considered a seaman under the Jones Act, the plaintiff’s attorney sought to supplement her claim with state law—which broadens one’s recovery in a wrongful death action. Here, the court recognized the Supreme Court’s holding in Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun—holding that non-seafarers may supplement GML wrongful death claims with state law and that nonseafarers are those not covered by Jones Act or Longshore Act. The defendants argued that the Court in Yamaha extended state-law remedies only to non-seafarers and that the decedent, as a longshoreman, did not fall in that category. The plaintiff, however, contended that Yamaha did not address whether seafarers had recourse to state-law remedies, but instead addressed only “whether it was Morgane’s design to terminate recourse to state remedies when nonseafarers meet death in territorial waters.” Nieves v. Cooper Marine & Timberlands Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127487 at 17 (Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, Aug. 11, 2017). Here, the court decided not to wade through the complex area of conflicting definitions which resulted from Yamaha, but rather addressed specific issues of Arkansas state law that were raised. In finding that the state laws were in conflict with GML for the damages sought, the court held the following:

1. Mental anguish of surviving spouse and beneficiaries – The Arkansas wrongful death statute expressly permits the surviving spouse and beneficiaries of the deceased to recover for mental anguish resulting from the death of the decedent. The Supreme Court in Gaudet, however, expressly excluded recovery for this element of damages. Thus, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted.
2. Recovery of damages by non-dependent beneficiaries – Similarly, the Arkansas statute also allows recovery of damages to beneficiaries that include nondependent family members. Again, the court relied on Gaudet in which the Supreme Court uniformly spoke in terms of dependents. Additionally, the court recognized that an overwhelming majority of federal courts only allow dependents to recover for wrongful death under GML. In concluding that the Arkansas state law conflicted with the GML, this claim was also dismissed.
3. Recovery under the Arkansas survival statute – The Arkansas survival statute specifically allows “a decedent’s estate to recover for the decedent’s loss of life as an independent element of damages.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-101(b). Here, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to support her claim with a case permitting loss of life damages in a case involving a survival action. Relying on a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Wahlstrom v. Kawaski Heavy Indus., Ltd.—which held that damages may not be awarded in a survival action for loss of enjoyment of life—the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.