Powers v. Bayliner Marine Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 1:92-CV-571.,1:92-CV-571.
• Citation: Powers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 855 F.Supp. 199, 1995 AMC 449 (W.D. Mich. 1994)
• Parties: Terry P. POWERS, Next Friend of Hillary Ann Powers, a Minor; Terry P. Powers, Personal Rep. of Nancy Diane Powers, Dec'd; John Muller, Personal Rep. of Thomas Muller, Dec'd; Thomas E. Lane, Personal Rep. of Joey Bordeaux, Dec'd; Judith Reed, Personal Rep. of Stephen Knapp, Dec'd and Timothy Knapp, Dec'd, Plaintiffs, v. BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

855 F. Supp. 199

1995 AMC 449

Terry P. POWERS, Next Friend of Hillary Ann Powers, a Minor; Terry P. Powers, Personal Rep. of Nancy Diane Powers, Dec'd; John Muller, Personal Rep. of Thomas Muller, Dec'd; Thomas E. Lane, Personal Rep. of Joey Bordeaux, Dec'd; Judith Reed, Personal Rep. of Stephen Knapp, Dec'd and Timothy Knapp, Dec'd, Plaintiffs, v.BAYLINER MARINE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation.

No. 1:92-CV-571.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

May 17, 1994.

William J. Heaphy, Vandeveer Garzia, P.C., Holland, MI, for plaintiffs.

William F. Mills, Gruel, Mills, Nims & Pylman, Grand Rapids, MI, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

McKEAGUE, District Judge.

On April 28, 1994, the Court heard oral arguments on numerous motions filed by the parties in preparation for trial.The Court adjudicated most of these motions by order dated May 2, 1994.The Court took several of the motions under advisement and gave the parties opportunity to file supplemental briefs.The supplemental briefing is now complete.This opinion and order contains the Court's rulings on the outstanding motions.

I. Non-Pecuniary (Loss of Society) Damages

Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of the estates of four persons who died when the recreational vessel, a sailboat, in which they were passengers, capsized on Lake Michigan, and the next friend of a minor fifth person who was injured in the same incident.They have asserted wrongful death and personal injury claims against the manufacturer of the sailboat, Bayliner Marine Corporation("Bayliner"), under general maritime law.Bayliner has filed a motion in limine asking the Court to exclude all evidence that might be offered in support of plaintiffs' claims for non-pecuniary damages.Bayliner contends non-pecuniary damages for loss of society are no longer recoverable under general maritime law in the wake of Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.,498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275(1990).

In Miles,the Supreme Court held the nondependent mother of a Jones Act seaman could not recover from the decedent's employer for loss of society in a wrongful death action based on the unseaworthiness of the vessel under general maritime law.This is the specific holding of Miles.Bayliner contends, however, that the intended reach of Miles is much broader than its holding.Bayliner asks the Court to recognize the Supreme Court's purpose of furthering the uniform plan of maritime tort law which Congress has sought to establish.Accordingly, Miles is said to preclude recovery for loss of society in all general maritime cases.

Bayliner paints with a brush too broad.The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, creates a wrongful death action against the employer, in favor of the personal representative of a seaman whose death is caused by negligence in the course of employment.It incorporates the remedies available to railway employees under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-59.These remedies have traditionally been construed as providing recovery only for pecuniary loss.Miles,498 U.S. at 31, 111 S.Ct. at 325.Hence, loss of society damages have been held not recoverable under the Jones Act as well.Id.

Miles does not involve a Jones Act claim.The Supreme Court recognized that Miles, as personal representative of a deceased seaman, had a cause of action under general maritime law for her son's death allegedly caused by the vessel's unseaworthiness, pursuant to Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.,398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339(1970).The claim was not precluded by the Jones Act, even though it involved the claim of a seaman's personal representative against his employer, because it was based on unseaworthiness, not negligence.498 U.S. at 29, 111 S.Ct. at 324.Yet, though the cause of action was held not precluded, the measure of recovery available to a seaman, or on his behalf, against his employer, was held to be dictated by the Jones Act.Id., at 30-32, 111 S.Ct. at 325-26.Justice O'Connor explained the rationale as follows:

The general maritime claim here alleged that decedent had been killed as a result of the unseaworthiness of the vessel.It would be inconsistent with our place in the constitutional scheme were we to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially-created cause of action in which liability is without fault than Congress has allowed under the Jones Act in cases of death resulting from negligence.We must conclude that there is no recovery for loss of society in a general maritime action for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman.

Id., at 32, 111 S.Ct. at 326.She concluded by observing: "Today we restore a uniform rule applicable to all actions for the wrongful death of a seaman...."Id.

The uniformity explicitly restored is thus limited to the wrongful death claims of seamen.Further, the extent of the uniformity is defined by the Jones Act, which purports to govern only as between seamen and their employers.

Here, none of the plaintiffs is a seaman or personal representative of a seaman, and no claim is made against a seaman's employer.As important as the Miles decision is in some respects, it simply is inapposite here.

The Court acknowledges the existence of contrary authority: Walker v. Braus,995 F.2d 77, 81-82(5th Cir.1993);Newhouse v. United States,844 F.Supp. 1389, 1393-94(D.Nev.1994);Shield v. Bayliner Marine Corp.,822 F.Supp. 81, 83-84(D.Conn.1993);Carnival Cruise Lines v. Red Fox Ind., Inc.,813 F.Supp. 1185, 1186-87(E.D.La.1993).These rulings represent anticipatory extensions of Miles.As maritime law continues to evolve, the Supreme Court may very well reach the same conclusion in the future, but this Court applies the law as it now exists.

Accordingly, the Court follows the course charted by a growing list of authorities that have read Miles more narrowly: Schumacher v. Cooper,850 F.Supp. 438(D.S.C.1994);Emery v. Rock Island Boat Works, Inc.,847 F.Supp. 114(C.D.Ill.1994);Petition of Cleveland Tankers, Inc.,843 F.Supp. 1157, 1159-60(E.D.Mich.1994);Sugden v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.,796 F.Supp. 455, 457(W.D.Wash.1992).

If Miles does not preclude recovery for loss of society under general maritime law, then it follows that such damages are recoverable now to the same extent they were recoverable prior to Miles.That is, pursuant to the principles enunciated in Moragne, supra,andSea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet,414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9(1974), loss of society damages are recoverable under general maritime law where there is no statute that would preclude the same, but only, as the parties here agree, by dependent survivors.SeeAnderson v. Whittaker Corp.,894 F.2d 804, 811-12(6th Cir.1990);Wahlstrom v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.,4 F.3d 1084, 1091-92(2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1060, 127 L.Ed.2d 380(1994);Cleveland Tankers, supra,843 F.Supp. at 1159-60;Cantore v. Blue Lagoon Water Sports, Inc.,799 F.Supp. 1151, 1155(S.D.Fla.1992).

Accordingly, defendant Bayliner's motion to exclude evidence relating to plaintiffs' claims for loss of society suffered by dependent survivors is DENIED.¹

II.Punitive Damages

Bayliner's motion to exclude all evidence relating to punitive damages is similarly based on Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., supra.Bayliner contends punitive damages are a species of non-pecuniary damages intended to come within the reach of Miles' uniformity dragnet.As indicated supra, Miles' dragnet does not sweep as broadly as Bayliner would have it.

It is undisputed that punitive damages are a form of non-pecuniary damages.As with loss of society damages, many post-Miles decisions have used broad language in discussing the impact of Miles on the availability of punitive damages under general maritime law.See e.g., Wahlstrom v. Kawasaki Heavy Ind., Ltd., supra,4 F.3d at 1094;Boykin v. D.Y. A/S,822 F.Supp. 324, 326(E.D.Va.1993);LaVoie v. Kualoa Ranch & Activity Club, Inc.,797 F.Supp. 827, 830-31(D.Hawaii1992).In Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd.,989 F.2d 1450, 1459(6th Cir.1993), cert. denied___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 304, 126 L.Ed.2d 252(1993), the Sixth Circuit, following Miles, held that "punitive damages are not available in a general maritime law unseaworthiness action for the wrongful death of a seaman."Then, after surveying four federal statutes relating to maritime law, the Miller court observed in dictum that "there is a general congressional policy disfavoring awards of punitive damages in maritime wrongful death actions."989 F.2d at 1457.

Still, a careful reading of the case law reveals that punitive damages have been disallowed under general maritime law, consistent with Miles, only where allowing them would contravene not just a general policy favoring uniformity, but an established definite statutory scheme.SeeBoykin, supra(involving a survival action by the estate of a seaman);LaVoie, supra(a seaman's personal injury action).This narrower reading of the impact of Miles on punitive damages claims is made explicit in several recent decisions.SeeCEH, Inc. v. F/V "Seafarer",153 F.R.D. 491(D.R.I.1994);Newhouse v. United States, supra,844 F.Supp at 1394;Mussa v. Cleveland Tankers,802 F.Supp. 84, 87(E.D.Mich.1992), recon. denied,802 F.Supp. 88(E.D.Mich.1992);Anderson v. Texaco, Inc.,797 F.Supp. 531, 536(E.D.La.1992);DuPlantis v. Texaco, Inc.,771 F.Supp. 787(E.D.La.1991).

Bayliner argues the dictum found in Miller signals the Sixth Circuit's intent to read Miles more broadly.Yet, the cited Miller comment is just that: a thing said in passing, not integral to the court's ruling.Further, the comment does not constitute an opinion of any sort, but merely an observation of the general and undeniable congressional distaste for punitive damages.Congress has not spoken, however, concerning claims of the nature here presented, and the "poli...