Seaman’s Complaint for Punitive Damages Dismissed
Weller v. Fishing Co. of Alaska,Inc., 2019 WL1200447, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41737 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2019).
By: Ashley Fisher
Aftersustaining an injury in the course of his tenure as a cook aboard the ALASKAJURIS, plaintiff Matthew Weller (Weller) filed suit against Fishing Company ofAlaska for punitive and compensatory damages and for attorney fees. Specifically,Weller alleged that “[his] injuries, disabilities,and damages were directly and proximately caused by the unseaworthiness of thevessel; the negligence, in whole or in part, of the defendants and theiragents, servants and employees; and the failure of the defendants to provide areasonably safe place to work, in one or more of the following ways: failing toprovide mechanical assistance, failing to provide assistance, negligent order,insufficient workers to complete the assigned tasks, and failing to provide asafe place to work.”[1]Fishing Company of Alaska moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding thepunitive damages, “earned and unearned wages and double wage penalties”, andattorney fees and consequential damages related to termination of maintenanceand cure claims. The court ultimately dismissed Weller’s claim for “earned andunearned wages and double wage penalties” without leave to amend and dismissedclaims for attorney fees and punitive damages without prejudice and with leaveto amend.
In consideration of Weller’s punitive damages claim, the court foundthat the alleged facts were insufficient to meet the standard set forth in Batterton v. Dutra Group, which held that “punitive damagesare available where defendants [are] engaged in “conduct which manifestsreckless or callous disregard for the rights of others ... or gross negligenceor actual malice or criminal indifference.”[2]Additionally, to recover under general maritime law, Weller had the burden to“show both that the vessel was not “reasonably fit for its intended use” andthat “the unseaworthy condition proximately caused his injuries.”[3]Here, Waller failed to make non-conclusory, factual allegations in regard tothe fitness of the vessel. Therefore, he was unable to satisfy the burden forpunitive damages under his unseaworthiness claim.
Welleralso alleged entitlement to consequential damages and attorney fees for failureto pay maintenance and cure. The scope of the Supreme Court’s holding in Kopczynski has been “interpreted toallow attorney’s fees only when the failure to provide maintenance and cure wasarbitrary, recalcitrant or unreasonable.”[4]Further, in Atkinson, attorney feeswere appropriate where failure to provide maintenance and cure was “willful andpersistent.”[5]Weller stated that (1) he was receiving maintenance at the time his complaintwas filed and (2) he still sustains unresolved injuries. The Court found thatalthough Weller had stated a plausible claim for wrongful termination ofmaintenance and cure, he failed to provide factual allegations that thetermination was arbitrary, recalcitrant, or unreasonable.
Alternatively,in regard to Weller’s claim for consequential damages, a “breach of the duty
[to provide maintenance and cure]
may render the owner liable for theconsequential damages suffered by the seaman.”[6]Damages are available upon a showing of “wrongful failure to providemaintenance and cure,”[7]and maintenance and cure is properly provided until the seaman is cured of his injury.[8]Because Weller claimed that his maintenance and cure was discontinued in spiteof his unresolved injuries, the court found his claim to be plausible.
Ultimately,the court dismissed Weller’s claim for “earned and unearned wages and doublewage penalties” without leave to amend and dismissed claims for attorney feesand punitive damages without prejudice and with leave to amend.
[1] Weller v. Fishing Co. ofAlaska, Inc, , 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41737, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14,2019).
[2] 880 F.3d at 1091.
[3] See Ribitzki v.Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd. Partnership,111 F.3d 658 (9th. Cir. 1997).
[4] 742 F.2d at 559.
[5] 369 U.S. at 531.
[6] See Calmar S.S.Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 (1938).
[7] See Baylor v.Icicle Seafoods, Inc., Case No.C04-2272-MJP, Dkt. No. 75 at 4 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
[8] See PermanenteS.S. Corp., 369 F.2d at 298.
