On October 9, I blogged on the case of McBride v. Estis Well Service, No. 12-30714 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013), where a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that seamen may recover punitive
damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime
law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The court found that previous
decisions, to the extent that they denied recovery of punitive damages for
maritime liability sounding in unseaworthiness, read too much into prior
Supreme Court and appellate court rulings on related, but different, issues. You can find my discussion on that case here=>
McBride Discussion.
At that time I noted that this was a potentially a major decision, likely to be appealed and certainly to generate discussion. Now, a majority of the circuit judges have voted in favor of granting the defendant's petition for rehearing en banc. You can find the en banc order here=> McBride v. Estis Well Service, No. 12-30714 (5th Cir., February 24, 2014).
Watch this space, as the question on whether punitive damages for unseaworthiness are recoverable is not yet clearly answered.
If you are interested in contacting me, you may reach me at mov@chaloslaw.com.
At that time I noted that this was a potentially a major decision, likely to be appealed and certainly to generate discussion. Now, a majority of the circuit judges have voted in favor of granting the defendant's petition for rehearing en banc. You can find the en banc order here=> McBride v. Estis Well Service, No. 12-30714 (5th Cir., February 24, 2014).
Watch this space, as the question on whether punitive damages for unseaworthiness are recoverable is not yet clearly answered.
If you are interested in contacting me, you may reach me at mov@chaloslaw.com.
Comments
Post a Comment