1. In Dennis v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp., 323 F.Supp. 943, 948 (D.C. La. 1971), a case brought under general maritime law, the court concluded that damages for loss of support are recoverable under both general maritime law and the Jones Act.  To demonstrate the appropriate damages for loss of support to the decedent’s daughter, the court listed the following information in it’s opinion:
“The decedent was a widower. He was survived by his only daughter, Gabrielle Joan Dennis, who was 31 years of age at the time of the death of her father. Miss Dennis suffers from a schizophrenic reaction with border line intelligence and is somewhat retarded. She has not been able to work for some years or to support herself, and she was totally and completely maintained by her father at the time of his death, as she had been throughout most of her life. She lived with her father who paid for everything she needed in life. She had no income. However, she inherited the duplex house in which she and her father lived. One side of this is her home and the other side yields her a modest rental income. No evidence was offered to show a loss of inheritance by reason of a shortening of the decedent’s life.
Dennis was 61 years old when he died. His life expectancy, according to the 1967 tables of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, was then 15.4 years. Civil Service regulations would have permitted him to work until 70, but even so, his work life expectancy was something less than 9 years.
He had been earning $11,000 a year from his work as a marine surveyor. He had a Marine Engineers Beneficial Association pension of $4,000 per year, which terminated upon his death. Had Mr. Dennis lived, the pension would have continued for the rest of his life.
Mr. Dennis’ income tax amounted to $2,843, leaving him a net economic income after taxes in the year of his death of $12,336. It is likely he would have had an income of this amount for not less than eight years, and thereafter an income of $4,000 for seven more years. It is also likely that he would have contributed equally generously to his daughter’s support so long as he lived without reduction because of his own retirement. The evidence shows that Miss Dennis lives quietly, dresses modestly, has no social engagements, and little medical expense. In my opinion, she has established an average loss of support of $1,800 a year for 15.4 years. Discounted at 5 ½% (an amount at which U.S. obligations can now be purchased) this amounts to $18,864.”
Id. at 948-49.

In a major turn of events, Judge Carl Barbier ruled recently in the multi-district litigation filed on the Eastern District of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans that plaintiffs in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation will be allowed to seek punitive damages and maritime law remedies against BP and other companies responsible for the catastrophic explosion and oil spill that occurred in April 2010. Previously, BP had files a motion in court seeking to dismiss thousands of economic damage claims pending in Louisiana Court.

To determine whether certain claims should remain in the litigation, Judge Barbier had to wade through the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and federal maritime law, as well as state laws. Lawyers defending BP and other defendants argued that the oil spill victims could not seek punitive damages because the federal Oil Pollution Act was silent, and because the Oil Pollution Act displaces federal maritime law, which provides for punitive damages.

Judge Barbier disagreed with the defendant and rules that fisherman and those with direct physical property damage from the oil spill can pursue punitive damages against the defendants, as traditional plaintiffs have been able to do for years under maritime law. Moreover, Judge Barbier determined that the case properly falls within maritime law and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Maritime law allows for claims of negligence. gross negligence and strict liability for manufacturing or design defects.

The United States has now put the lion’s share of the blame for the oil spill on BP. The Government issued its final assessment of last year’s Gulf disaster in mid-September. This report could play a huge role in BP’s decision-making as it relates to settlement. It could also set the stage for criminal charges. The Coast Guard and the offshore oil regulator said in the report that BP was solely to blame for eight more. That was not good news for BP.

After the most definitive look yet at the disaster, investigators said BP focused excessively on containing costs and speeding up operations, and made a series of decisions that complicated cementing operations, which they said were the central cause of the disaster. While the findings were broadly in line with several previous investigations, this report offered the most comprehensive look at the government’s official view on the cause of the Gulf’s oil spill, including analysis of the recovered blowout preventer and violations of federal regulations by the companies involved with the well. It was significant that the report said:”BP’s cost or time saving decisions without considering contingencies and mitigation were contributing causes of the Macondo blowout.”

The Justice Department had already sued the well’s owners,BP,Anadarko Petroleum Corp and Mitsui & Co., as well as Transocean. These civil claims are now before the federal court in New Orleans, where a trial allocating blame for the spill. Many believe the report increases the likelihood that BP, Transocean, and Halliburton will face criminal charges for their roles in causing the Gulf oil spill. The findings from the report could cause BP to put over $30 billion on the table to settle all of the claims against the giant oil company.

BP has said it estimates the cost of the oil spill will end up at around $42 billion, including all environmental coats, compensation,legal claims and fines. The total payment from BP- whether by court action or settlement- will be much greater. While BP has allocated      $3.5 billion for Clean Water Act fines, if the oil giant is found to have been grossly negligent, which is very likely, it will be fined much more that $21 billion.

Loss of support damages are predicted upon showing of full or partial dependency.    Rohan, 896 F.Supp. at 672-73. Recovery for loss of support “includes all the financial contributions that the decedent would have made to his dependents had he lived.”         Sea-Land Serv.,Inc. v. Gaudet,414 U.S. 573, 584-85 (1974) (overruled on different grounds). Loss of support damages depend on a calculation of the future income of a decedent , but it is “not strictly speaking, a recovery for future earnings.” Rohan, 896 F.Supp. at 673. See also in re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept, 1, 1983, 807 F. Supp. 1073, 1083 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (Finding that although Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. disallows recovery for future earnings. “Lost earnings may be proved for the purpose of determining loss of support and loss of inheritance”).

Many times product claims arise from workers compensation claims. After we investigate the circumstances that caused the injuries, many times we discover a defective machine may be the cause of the injuries.

Reeves & Mestayer P.L.L.C

228-374-5151