Dutra Group v. Batterton (18-266)

argument 18-266

Dutra Group v. Batterton

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s view on the Jones Act’s role in shaping remedies for injured seamen?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case eighteen two six six, the Dutra group

Matthew Waxman 0:05

versus Batterton. Mr Waxman. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In Miles, this court emphasized that when Congress enacted the Jones Act, it took principal responsibility for fashioning remedies for injured seamen and again and again This court has followed Congress's seat.

Elena Kagan 0:28

A little bit backwards. I thought the Jones Act directly says That it's there to supplement whatever the remedies were. Um not to take remedies away. It was there to give more protection to semen, not less.

Matthew Waxman 0:44

So the Jones Act doesn't say anything about remedies.

Elena Kagan 0:48

But our case law has said it repeatedly.

Matthew Waxman 0:56

was that the Jones Act provides vis a vis unseaworthiness, alternative grounds for recovery of a single cause of action. And the court also said in Mitchell versus Trawler Racer several years later that with the passage of the Jones Act, Congress obliterated all distinctions between the kinds of negligence for which shipowners are liable. And But that

Elena Kagan 1:25

doesn't tell me that their intent was to take away common law remedies. I thought that's what Townsend said, which is If unless there is some Uh Proof. Contrary evidence, those common law remedies still remain. And so my question is that's a different statement than what you started with. Well

Matthew Waxman 1:49

Elena Kagan 1:50

that it's the exclusive remedy.

Matthew Waxman 1:53

No, I think my I'm I'm not sure that it is a different statement. The question is and this court has made clear not only in this area of the law vis a vis the Jones Act um and in cases like Moraine and Monnicht and Miles itself that when Congress exercise but but also in cases like and I point the court to the the court's decision in Milwaukee versus Illinois in which the Court stated the gener broader rule that f when federal when this court sits as a federal common law court and announces and expounds the scope of federal common law remedies, it has the authority to do that interstitial lawmaking function. But when then Congress then comes in and legislates in that particular area and sets out particular remedies, the previous scope of the common law remedies subside.

Matthew Waxman 2:49

That's exactly what this just Chief Justice Rehnquist explained for the court in Milwaukee, and it's what happened in this case, and is what oughta happen in this case. Now as to Towns in. Um Townsend is very much not to the contrary, because it is it involved maintenance and cure rather than unseaworthiness, and that makes a tremendous difference in several dimensions. First of all, and most fundamentally, unseaworthiness is a substitute for Jones Act negligence, while maintenance and cure, as this court is Not a

Elena Kagan 3:27

complete substitute. There are different elements to unseaworthiness. Um than there are to n ordinary negligence. It it there's different standards. Uh I

Matthew Waxman 3:48

The ca th the at the time that the Jones Act was enacted The contours of the particular cause of action differed significantly. The Jones Act was much reached much broader. But this court nonetheless said in the nineteen twenties, in Phillips and in Townsend and Baltimore steamships that and Peterson Uh rather that This w what Congress did was to legislate an alternative grounds for the recovery of a single cause of action. And this court explained right away

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 4:24

Mr Weston, if I can interrupt you there, I thought the main reason for the Jones Act was that there wasn't under the unseaworthiness doctrine a simple case of neg negligence, a fellow crew member. acts negligently and injures you. There was no unseaworthiness remedy for that. And so Jones came in to create a negligence remedy that didn't exist before, that had nothing to do with the fitness of the ship.

Matthew Waxman 4:51

I I I agree with that articulation that this court rendered in the Osceola in nineteen oh five and as to which the Jones Act was addressed. There are several points. Number one, following the enactment of the Jones Act, this court, in a succession of cases, at least five times beginning in nineteen forty-four in the Mocknick case. expanded and revised the contours of the unseaworthiness remedy so that it now is and and Justice Sotomayor will get to you on the incremental differences between the two, so that it now is recognized as a virtual substitute.