Baptiste

I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.

In my opinion the ball game is over and the petition should be denied once the majority opinion correctly concluded, as it did, (1) that while litigants may elect to pursue recovery pursuant to the Jones Act ( 46 U.S.C. § 688 ) and under the general maritime law doctrine of unseaworthiness in state courts, as distinguished from federal courts (probably for some perceived procedural reasons), “The prevailing rule is *105 that, regardless of the forum, federal [maritime] substantive law applies” (original italics); (2) that the remedies available under the Jones Act and the unseaworthiness doctrine can produce only one recovery and are now considered “Siamese twins”; and (3) that no federal statute has expressly authorized nor has any federal decisional law awarded punitive damages under circumstances presented in the instant case.

In clear language the Jones Act adopts the law of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) ( 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) 1 which governs actions against railroads (which criss-cross the United States) by their employees, thus making FELA part of the Jones Act for the purposes…

Lawler, Felix & Hall, Thomas E. Workman, Jr., Jane H. Barrett and Mary J. Bush for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

JEFFERSON (Bernard), P.J.

(1a) This petition for mandate compels resolution of the question of whether Gilbert A. Baptiste, the petitioner (hereinafter plaintiff), who is prosecuting in the superior court a maritime tort action against his corporate employer, Chevron Shipping Company (Standard Oil Company of California), real party in interest before us (hereinafter defendant), may there seek an award of punitive damages in addition to other relief. As we shall articulate, we have determined that petitioner may do so.

Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint in the superior court on December 4, 1974, in which he sought damages from defendant pursuant to the Jones Act [1] and general maritime law. He alleged that he had been employed by defendant from 1966 to 1974 as a seaman on various vessels owned and operated by defendant in navigable waters, and had sustained injuries due to defendant's negligence and failure to provide and maintain the seaworthiness of the vessels upon which plaintiff had worked.

In a second cause of action, plaintiff alleged that he was…

This petition for mandate compels resolution of the question of whether Gilbert A. Baptiste, the petitioner (hereinafter plaintiff), who is prosecuting in the superior court a maritime tort action against his corporate employer, Chevron Shipping Company (Standard Oil Company of California), real party in interest before us (hereinafter defendant), may there seek an award of punitive damages in addition to other relief. As we shall articulate, we have determined that petitioner may do so.

I

The Procedural Facts

Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint in the superior court on December 4, 1974, in which he sought damages from defendant pursuant to the Jones Act 1 and general maritime law. He alleged that he had been employed by defendant from 1966 to 1974 as a seaman on various vessels owned and operated by defendant in navigable waters, and had sustained injuries due to defendant’s negligence and failure to provide and maintain the seaworthiness of the vessels upon which plaintiff had worked.

In a second cause of action, plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to damages for maintenance and cure, and that defendant had “failed and refused to furnish plaintiff with…