Byline: Derek Hawkins
7th Circuit Digests
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Roen Salvage Company v. Julie Sarter
Case No.: 20-3433
Officials: EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Statutory Interpretation Limitation Act
Donald Sarter drowned after the vessel Monark #2 capsized in Lake Superior. His employer Roen Salvage, which owned Monark #2, filed this federal action under 46 U.S.C. 30505(a), asking the court to limit its liability to $25,000, which it says is the amount of its interest in the vessel. It also asked for exoneration from all liability, a possibility missing from 30505(a) (commonly called the Limitation Act) but mentioned in Rule F(2) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, an appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The first question for us is whether any federal statute entitles a vessel owner to have a federal judge determine exoneration. The answer is no. Certainly 30505(a) does not do so. It reads: "Except as provided in section 30506 of this title, the liability of the owner of a vessel for any claim, debt, or liability described in subsection (b) shall not exceed the value of the vessel and pending freight. If the vessel has more than one owner, the proportionate share of the liability of any one owner shall not exceed that owner's proportionate interest in the vessel and pending freight." And 30506, to which the Limitation Act refers, likewise does not mention exoneration. Thus any entitlement to exoneration lies in the common law of admiralty. That's how the Justices understood Rule F in Lewisas a restatement of old admiralty decisions. It would be hard to see Rule F as a free-standing limit of liability or a reservation of exclusive federal jurisdiction, given the language in the Rules Enabling Act that the federal rules are not supposed to abridge substantive rights. 28 U.S.C. 2072(b). And Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 proclaims that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not affect subject-maker jurisdiction either.
Because Julie Sarter has promised that she will not plead res judicata should Roen Salvage return to federal court under 30505(a), and because Roen does not possess a right to have a federal court determine its claim to exoneration from liability, we need not remand for the district court to make these makers explicit in its order allowing state litigation. In the future, district judges should choose appropriate language that will obviate the sort of dispute the parties to this case have had about exactly what words a would-be state-court plaintiff must use in order to protect the vessel owner's rights.
Affirmed
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: William Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al.,
Case No.: 20-3058; 20-3139
Officials: WOOD, ST. EVE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Prisoner 8th Amendment Violation
William Dean developed kidney cancer while incarcerated at Taylorville Correctional Center in central Illinois. Seven months after he first presented symptoms, Dean had kidney-removal surgery. Unfortunately, the cancer had already spread to his liver, so Dean remains terminally ill. In this lawsuit Dean sues two of the doctors involved in his care: Dr. Abdur Nawoor and Dr. Rebecca Einwohner. He also sues their employerWexford Health Sources, Inc. a private corporation that contracts with Illinois to provide healthcare to Illinois inmates.
Dean's lawsuit focuses on delays in the diagnosis and treatment of his kidney cancer. He blames the delays on his doctors' failure to arrange timely offsite care and on Wexford's "collegial review" policy, which requires Wexford's corporate office to preapprove offsite care. Dean submits that the defendants' actions were not merely negligent but deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case went to trial, and the jury sided with Dean, awarding him $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages against Wexford. After trial, the district court reduced the punitive damages award to $7 million. The defendants now appeal, challenging the jury's verdicts on the Eighth Amendment claims.
We reverse. Dean has endured great suffering, but he did not produce enough evidence at trial to hold any of the defendants liable for violating his...
