Case Name: Thomas A. EDMONDS v. BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., and Electro-Coal Transfer Corp.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1988-03-10
Citations: 522 So. 2d 1166
Docket Number: No. CA-7428
Parties: Thomas A. EDMONDS v. BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., and Electro-Coal Transfer Corp.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, WARD, Joan Bernard ARMSTRONG, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 522
Pages: 1166–1168

Head Matter:
Thomas A. EDMONDS v. BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., and Electro-Coal Transfer Corp.
No. CA-7428.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 10, 1988.
Charles B. Colvin, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.
Grady S. Hurley, Patrick H. Patrick, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carr-ere & Denegre, New Orleans, for defendants/appellees.
Before SCHOTT, WARD, Joan Bernard ARMSTRONG, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Plaintiff alleges that while he was working for Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc. he was injured as a result of the negligence of defendant, Electro-Coal Transfer Corp. Among a number of items of damages he claims is one for punitive damages. From a judgment sustaining defendant's exception of no cause of action as to this single item plaintiff has appealed.
In his petition plaintiff alleges that the accident occurred when defendant's tug caused an excessive wake which, in turn, caused him to fall from a barge where he was working for Boh Bros.; that the defendant engaged in the reckless operation of a vessel; and that its misconduct was willful and wanton entitling him to punitive damages.
Under Louisiana Law a plaintiff has no cause of action for punitive damages except where authorized by statute. Since this is a maritime claim, however, our courts must apply federal substantive law. Gaspard v. Transworld Drilling Company, 468 So.2d 692 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985); writ denied, 474 So.2d 1304 (La.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1067, 106 S.Ct. 1382, 89 L.Ed.2d 607. Under federal maritime law punitive damages may be imposed for conduct which manifests reckless or callous disregard for the rights of others or for conduct which shows gross negligence. Protectus Alpha Navigation v. North Pacific Grain Growers, Inc., 767 Fed.2d 1379 (9th Cir.1985).
Defendant correctly asserts that the court in considering an exception of no cause of action considers only the factual allegations of the petition and determines whether the law affords relief to plaintiff if those facts are proved at trial. Robinson v. North America Royalties Inc., 470 So. 2d 112 (La.1985). When stripped of conclu-sory allegations, which may not be considered on an exception of no cause of action, plaintiffs petition contains only the assertion that the wake from defendant's tug caused him to fall. He does not allege specific facts which may support the conclusion that the wave wash was "excessive", or why defendant's conduct should be classified as "misconduct" and characterized as "willful and wanton". However, in argument plaintiff alludes to many un-pleaded facts which may support the conclusion he asserts. Thus, it appears that he may be able to remove the grounds for defendant's objection to his petition by amending it. Under these circumstances the trial court was compelled to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his petition, LSA-C.C.P. art. 934.
Accordingly, that portion of the judgment appealed from sustaining defendant's exception of no cause of action for punitive damages is affirmed, but amended to order plaintiff to amend his petition within the delay allowed by the trial court. Costs of this appeal are taxed against defendant. Other costs are to await the outcome of the case.
AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.
WARD, J., concurs.