## Facts

- Estis Well Service, L.L.C. owned and operated Rig 23, a barge supporting a truck-mounted drilling rig working in Bayou Sorrell, a navigable waterway in Louisiana.
- Estis employed seamen Skye Sonnier, Saul C. Touchet, Brian J. Suire, and Joshua Bourque as members of the rig’s crew.
- While the crew attempted to straighten a twisted “monkey board” (a catwalk extending from the derrick), the derrick pipe shifted and the rig and truck toppled.
- Sonnier was fatally pinned between the derrick and a mud tank; Touchet, Suire, and Bourque alleged personal injuries.
- Sonnier’s representative and the injured seamen sued Estis for Jones Act negligence and general maritime law unseaworthiness, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The district court (via magistrate judge by consent) granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing punitive-damages claims and certified an interlocutory appeal; a Fifth Circuit panel reversed, and the court reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages are recoverable for a seaman’s injury or death on a Jones Act negligence claim against the employer.
2. Whether punitive damages are recoverable for a seaman’s injury or death on a general maritime law unseaworthiness claim against the employer, including for allegedly willful and wanton conduct.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of punitive-damages claims.
- Punitive damages are not available under the Jones Act for employer negligence causing a seaman’s injury or death.
- Punitive damages are not available under general maritime law for unseaworthiness claims brought by Jones Act seamen against their employer for the same injury or death.
- The court treated Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. as controlling, and read Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend as limited to maintenance-and-cure claims.

## Legal Principles

- The Jones Act incorporates FELA’s remedial limits; recovery is limited to pecuniary losses, which excludes punitive damages.
- For Jones Act seamen, remedies for general maritime law unseaworthiness are constrained to avoid damages that exceed the Jones Act’s remedial scope for the same injury event.
- Miles requires a uniform remedial approach between statutory seamen’s remedies and closely related judge-made maritime causes of action for seamen’s injury or death.
- Townsend permits punitive damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure because that claim has a distinct historical basis and was not displaced by statute; it does not authorize punitive damages for Jones Act negligence or unseaworthiness in this setting.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that, for injuries or death to Jones Act seamen caused by an employer’s negligence or an unseaworthy condition, punitive damages are unavailable on both the Jones Act negligence claim and the parallel general maritime law unseaworthiness claim, preserving a uniform, pecuniary-loss remedial scheme.


McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc)