Batterton Does Not Foreclose Punitive Damages In Cruise Ship Wrongful Death Claim Standard is Intentional Misconduct
Noon v. Carnival Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136528 (S.D. Fl. Aug, 12, 2019)(no WestLaw citation at current time).
This wrongful death action appears to be the first reported case seeking punitive damages since the release of the Batterton opinion. The decedent experienced respiratory problems the night before the vessel was to dock in Miami. The vessel charged the family $300 for an oxygen tank; however, while disembarking, the crew allegedly prevented the decedent or her family to take the tank or provide a substitute tank. Allegedly, the vessel also failed to call emergency medical services and prohibited the family from doing so. As the decedent attempted to disembark on her own, she went into respiratory failure and died the following day at a local hospital.
Carnival filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, a Motion to Strike the claim for punitive damages asserting that punitive damages are unavailable in personal injury actions under general maritime law absent intentional misconduct. The decision by Magistrate Edwin Torres addresses the disparate views of district judges in the Southern District of Florida whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Townsend overruled the 11th Cir. rule addressed in In re Sunset Limited[1] This rule states that punitive damages are available in exceptional circumstances for intentional misconduct. The claimant maintained punitive damages are available for willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct. The magistrate reasoned that Townsend does not overrule Sunset Limited because it was a claim for failure to pay maintenance and cure and that the case did not establish a bright line rule for application of the standard for punitive damages in a maritime tort claim.
Batterton forecloses only those claims based on unseaworthiness but underscores that punitive damages are available for certain maritime torts.[2] Thus, the issue was not whether punitive damages are available for a maritime tort (the wrongful death claim) but the standard to apply for punitive damages. The magistrate concluded that the claimant must prove intentional misconduct on the part of the defendant. In this case, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to allege “gross recklessness tantamount to intentional misconduct.”[3] The motion was denied.
[1] 121 F.3d 1421, 1426 (11th Cir. 1997).
[2] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136528, at *39.
[3] Id. at *40-41.
