Claim Preclusion Bars Seaman from Recovery for Damages under Jones Act
Musleh v. American Steamship Company, 2019 WL 1125333, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7198, 2019 FED App. 0113N (6th Cir., Mar. 1, 2019)
By: Arthur Crais
After having been injured in 2014, the seaman brought suit against American Steamship Company seeing maintenance and cure and wages to the end of the voyage. The trial court dismissed the suit which was not appealed. Three months later he sued in federal district court seeking damages under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure for the same injury. The trial court granted the vessel owner summary judgment on the basis of res judicata which was appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The panel in an unreported decision determined that claim preclusion barred the suit. Claim preclusion requires four elements: “'(1) a final decision on the merits; (2) a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies; (3) an issue in a subsequent action which should have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity of the causes of action.’” (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7198 at *3) Only the fourth element was challenged.
The seaman asserted that the first suit was brought because the employer refused to allow him to return to work and that he sought maintenance and cure and wages from the date the company refused to allow him to return to work. (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7198 at *4) The panel was not persuaded. Any claim for maintenance and cure and wages were triggered by his injury. Likewise, the claim for damages under the Jones Act and for unseaworthiness also arise from the same occurrence. The claims “all arose out of the same transaction or operative facts, there is an identity of the causes of action raised in both lawsuits….” (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7198 at *7) His claims are thus barred by res judicata.
