Jump to content

Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DannyS712 bot (talk | contribs) at 04:55, 7 May 2019 (top: Task 33: Remove old SCOTUS parameter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend
Argued March 2, 2009
Decided June 25, 2009
Full case nameAtlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Edgar L. Townsend
Docket no.08-214
Citations557 U.S. 404 (more)
129 S. Ct. 2561; 174 L. Ed. 2d 382; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4732; 77 U.S.L.W. 4603; 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 385; 2009 AMC 1521; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1004
Holding
Because punitive damages have long been an accepted remedy under general maritime law, and because neither Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. (1990) nor the Jones Act altered this understanding, punitive damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation remain available as a matter of general maritime law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy

Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a seaman may recover punitive damages from his employer for failure to pay maintenance and cure. Townsend reversed a line of cases, starting with Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans), that restricted damages in maritime personal injury cases only to "pecuniary" damages. Consequently, a seaman can now recover both attorney's fees and punitive damages for the willful and wanton refusal of a shipowner to provide medical care to a seaman injured on the job. The Court's 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Court explained that Congress never used the words "pecuniary" or "non-pecuniary" to describe the damages available for personal injuries (injuries not causing death) under either the Jones Act or the Federal Employers Liability Act.[citation needed] Congress merely said "damages"; hence, any limitation on those damages to "pecuniary damages" was a creation of the courts, not Congress. The Court stated that it "will not attribute words to Congress that Congress did not say."