Worker’s LHWCA Claims For Pain And Suffering Not Subject To Maryland’s Noneconomic Loss Cap

Working on a vessel in Baltimore harbor, a longshoreman was attempting to maneuver a forklift around an open hatch but after issues with the machinery’s brakes, the forklift skidded on the deck, fell through the hatch, and severely injured a worker below.  The injured worker filed suit alleging that the companies involved in the operation—the vessel owner and the commercial manager responsible for negotiating employment and cargoes and coordinating the vessel’s voyages—negligently permitted workers to operate forklifts at high rates of speed around open and unprotected hatches, failed to rectify safety hazards, and did not properly safeguard the open hatch.  The injured worker claimed damages under general maritime law and Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in deciding motions for summary judgment, had to decide whether the plaintiff’s claims for pain and suffering damages were subject to Maryland’s cap on noneconomic loss.  Under Maryland law, noneconomic damages may not exceed $500,000, plus an additional $15,000 for every year after 1995.  The court ruled the damages were not subject to the cap because the Maryland cap, even though it does not conflict with the LHWCA’s essential purpose, both materially prejudiced maritime law’s treatment of noneconomic damages and interferes with maritime law’s uniform application.

The court also granted summary judgment to the vessel’s commercial manager on the grounds that its influence over the vessel owner’s safety procedures was too remote to constitute “active control” under Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981).