Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 169

524US1

Unit: $U78

[09-06-00 18:35:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

124

DOOLEY v. KOREAN AIR LINES CO.

Opinion of the Court

The comprehensive scope of DOHSA is conﬁrmed by its
survival provision, see supra, at 122, which limits the recov-
ery in such cases to the pecuniary losses suffered by surviv-
ing relatives. The Act thus expresses Congress’ “consid-
ered judgment,” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, supra, at
625, on the availability and contours of a survival action in
cases of death on the high seas. For this reason, it cannot be
contended that DOHSA has no bearing on survival actions;
rather, Congress has simply chosen to adopt a more limited
survival provision.
Indeed, Congress did so in the same
year that it incorporated into the Jones Act, which permits
seamen injured in the course of their employment to recover
damages for their injuries, a survival action similar to the
one petitioners seek here. See Act of June 5, 1920, § 33, 41
Stat. 1007 (incorporating survival action of the Federal Em-
ployers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 59). Even in the exercise
of our admiralty jurisdiction, we will not upset the balance
struck by Congress by authorizing a cause of action with
which Congress was certainly familiar but nonetheless de-
clined to adopt.

In sum, Congress has spoken on the availability of a sur-
vival action, the losses to be recovered, and the beneﬁciaries,
in cases of death on the high seas. Because Congress has
chosen not to authorize a survival action for a decedent’s
pre-death pain and suffering, there can be no general mari-
time survival action for such damages.2 The judgment of
the Court of Appeals is

Afﬁrmed.

2 Accordingly, we need not decide whether general maritime law ever

provides a survival action.