ARTICLE
24 November 2016

Conflict Continues Between Federal And State Views On Punitive Damages

WE
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

Contributor

More than 800 attorneys strong, Wilson Elser serves clients of all sizes across multiple industries. It maintains 38 domestic offices, another in London and enjoys more extensive international reach as a founding member of Legalign Global.  The firm is currently ranked 56th in the National Law Journal’s NLJ 500.
The authors cite the Washington Supreme Court as the first to consider whether punitive damages are available to seafarers for violation of the doctrine of seaworthiness.
United States Transport

B. Otis Felder (Of Counsel-Los Angeles) and William K. Enger (Partner-Los Angeles) have authored an article, "Conflict Continues Between Federal and State Views on Punitive Damages," published in the November 1, 2016, issue of Benedict's Maritime Bulletin, a quarterly publication focused on the maritime law field. The authors cite the Washington Supreme Court as the first to consider whether punitive damages are available to seafarers for violation of the doctrine of seaworthiness. They discuss the general standard for proportionality of punitive to compensatory damages under general maritime law and the conflict between federal and state courts in applying the appropriate ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More