Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 162.0

524US1

Unit: $U78

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 116 (1998)

117

Syllabus

held that, in a case of death on the high seas, a decedent’s survivors
could not recover damages under general maritime law for their loss of
society, reasoning that, since DOHSA announced Congress’ considered
judgment on, inter alia, beneﬁciaries, survival, and damages, id., at 625,
the Court had no authority to substitute its views for those expressed
by Congress, id., at 626. Because Higginbotham involved only the
scope of the remedies available in a wrongful-death action, it did not
address the availability of other causes of action. However, petitioners
err in contending that DOHSA is a wrongful-death statute with no bear-
ing on the availability of a survival action. By authorizing only certain
surviving relatives to recover damages, and by limiting damages to
those relatives’ pecuniary losses, Congress provided the exclusive recov-
ery for deaths on the high seas. Petitioners concede that their action
would expand the class of beneﬁciaries entitled to recovery and the re-
coverable damages; but Congress has already decided these issues and,
thus, has precluded the judiciary from expanding either category.
DOHSA’s survival provision conﬁrms the Act’s comprehensive scope by
expressing Congress’ considered judgment on the availability and con-
tours of a survival action in cases of death on the high seas. Congress
has simply chosen to adopt a more limited survival provision than that
urged by petitioners.
Indeed, Congress did so in the same year that it
incorporated a survival action similar to the one petitioners seek into
the Jones Act, permitting seamen to recover damages for their own
injuries.
In the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, the Court will
not upset the balance Congress struck by authorizing a cause of action
with which Congress was certainly familiar but nonetheless declined to
adopt. Pp. 121–124.

117 F. 3d 1477, afﬁrmed.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Juanita M. Madole argued the cause and ﬁled briefs for

petitioners.

Andrew J. Harakas argued the cause for respondent.

With him on the brief was George N. Tompkins, Jr.

Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae urging afﬁrmance. On the brief were So-
licitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Hun-
ger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, David C. Frederick,
Barbara B. O’Malley, and Bruce G. Forrest.