Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/379/148/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-05-19 16:22:09
Document Index: 301769173

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1291', '§ 33', '§ 688', '§ 1292']

GILLESPIE V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 379 U. S. 148 - Volume 379 - 1964 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 379 > GILLESPIE V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 379 U. S. 148 (1964) > Full Text
(c) Delay in adjudication of the dependents' rights might work an injustice upon them. P. 379 U. S. 153.
damages for Gillespie's death, which was alleged to have occurred when he fell and was drowned while working as a seaman on respondent's ship docked in Ohio. She claimed a right to recover for the benefit of herself and of the decedent's dependent brother and sisters under the Jones Act, which subjects employers to liability if by negligence they cause a seaman's injury or death. [Footnote 1] She also claimed a right of recovery under the Ohio wrongful death statute [Footnote 2] because the vessel allegedly was not seaworthy, as required by the "general maritime law." The complaint in addition sought damages for Gillespie's pain and suffering before he died, based on the Jones Act and the general maritime law, causes of action which petitioner said survived Gillespie's death by force of the Jones Act itself and the Ohio survival statute, [Footnote 3] respectively. The District Judge, holding that the Jones Act supplied the exclusive remedy, on motion of respondent, struck all parts of the complaint which referred to the Ohio statutes or to unseaworthiness. He also struck all reference to recovery for the benefit of the brother and sisters of the decedent, who respondent had argued were
Petitioner immediately appealed to the Court of Appeals. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the ruling appealed from was not a "final" decision of the District Court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1958 ed.). [Footnote 4] Thereupon, petitioner administratrix, this time joined by the brother and sisters, filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus or other appropriate writ commanding the District Judge to vacate his original order and enter a new one either denying the motion to strike or, in the alternative, granting the motion but including also "the requisite written statement to effectively render his said order appealable within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)," a statute providing for appeal of certain interlocutory orders. [Footnote 5] Without definitely deciding whether mandamus would have been appropriate in this case or deciding the "close" question of appealability, the Court of Appeals proceeded to determine the controversy "on the merits as though it were submitted on an appeal"; [Footnote 6] this the court said it felt free to
In this Court, respondent joins petitioner in urging us to hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1858 ed.) does not require us to dismiss this case, and that we can and should decide the validity of the District Court's order to strike. We agree. Under § 1291, an appeal may be taken from any "final" order of a district court. But, as this Court often has pointed out, a decision "final" within the meaning of § 1291 does not necessarily mean the last order possible to be made in a case. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 337 U. S. 545. And our cases long have recognized that whether a ruling is "final" within the meaning of § 1291 is frequently so close a question that decision of that issue either way can be supported with equally forceful arguments, and that it is impossible to devise a formula to resolve all marginal cases coming within what might well be called the "twilight zone" of finality. Because of this difficulty, this Court has held that the requirement of finality is to be given a "practical, rather than a technical, construction." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., supra, 337 U.S. at 337 U. S. 546. See also Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 370 U. S. 306; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black 524, 67 U. S. 531; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 47 U. S. 203; Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U. S. 507, 338 U. S. 511, pointed out that, in deciding the question of finality, the most important competing considerations are
Such competing considerations are shown by the record in the case before us. It is true that the review of this case by the Court of Appeals court could be called "piecemeal," but it does not appear that the inconvenience and cost of trying this case will be greater because the Court of Appeals decided the issues raised, instead of compelling the parties to go to trial with them unanswered. We cannot say that the Court of Appeals chose wrongly under the circumstances. And it seems clear now that the case is before us that the eventual costs, as all the parties recognize, will certainly be less if we now pass on the questions presented here, rather than send the case back with those issues undecided. Moreover, delay of perhaps a number of years in having the brother's and sisters' rights determined might work a great injustice on them, since the claims for recovery for their benefit have been effectively cut off so long as the District Judge's ruling stands. And while their claims are not formally severable, so as to make the court's order unquestionably appealable as to them, cf. Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., supra, there certainly is ample reason to view their claims as several in deciding the issue of finality, particularly since the brother and sisters were separate parties in the petition for extraordinary relief. Cf. Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S.A., 339 U. S. 684, 339 U. S. 688-689; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545, 113 U. S. 548. Furthermore, in United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373, 323 U. S. 377, this Court, contrary to its usual practice, reviewed a trial court's refusal to permit proof of certain items of damages in a case not yet fully tried, because the ruling was "fundamental to the further conduct of the case." For these same reasons, this Court reviewed such a ruling in Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 330 U. S. 734, n. 2, and Larson v. Domestic
& Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 337 U. S. 685, n. 3, where, as here, the case had not yet been fully tried. And see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., supra, 337 U.S. at 337 U. S. 545-547. We think that the questions presented here are equally "fundamental to the further conduct of the case." It is true that, if the District Judge had certified the case to the District of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1958 ed.), the appeal unquestionably would have been proper; in light of the circumstances, we believe that the Court of Appeals properly implemented the same policy Congress sought to promote in § 1292(b) by treating this obviously marginal case as final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1958 ed.). We therefore proceed to consider the correctness of the Court of Appeals' judgment.
In 1930, this Court held, in Lindgren v. United States, 281 U. S. 38, that, in passing § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act 1920, now 46 U.S.C. § 688 (1958 ed.), commonly called the Jones Act, Congress provided an exclusive right of action for the death of seamen killed in the course of their employment, superseding all state death statutes which might otherwise be applied to maritime deaths, and, since the Act gave recovery only for negligence, precluding any possible recovery based on a theory of unseaworthiness. A strong appeal is now made that we overrule Lindgren because it is said to be unfair and incongruous in the light of some of our later cases which have liberalized the rights of seamen and nonseamen to recover on a theory of unseaworthiness for injuries, though not for death. [Footnote 8] No one of these cases, however, has cast doubt on the correctness of the interpretation
281 U.S. at 281 U. S. 44. Thirty-four years have passed since the Lindgren decision, and Congress has let the Jones Act stand with the interpretation this Court gave it. The decision was a reasonable one then. It provided the same remedy for injury or death for all seamen, the remedy that was and is provided for railroad workers in the Federal Employers' Liability Act. [Footnote 11] Whatever may be this Court's special responsibility for fashioning rules in maritime affairs, [Footnote 12] we do not believe that we should now disturb the settled plan of rights and liabilities established by the Jones Act.
The Court relies upon Lindgren v. United States, 281 U. S. 38, and the doctrine of stare decisis to justify its holding -- a holding which, in my view, is at variance with the general congressional intent in enacting the Jones Act "to provide liberal recovery for injured workers." Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U. S. 426, 355 U. S. 432. I do not feel that stare decisis compels the conclusion reached by the Court, because I believe, first, that the
In fact, much of the reasoning supporting the Lindgren dictum has been rejected in subsequent decisions of this Court. The Court's rationale in Lindgren for its conclusion that the Jones Act preempted remedies for wrongful death resulting from unseaworthiness, as well as negligence, was in part that the Act "covers the entire field of liability for injuries to seamen, it is paramount and exclusive." Lindgren v. United States, supra, at 281 U. S. 47. In Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., supra, however, this Court held that a seaman may recover for injuries sustained from the ship's unseaworthiness notwithstanding his right to a remedy under the Jones Act for negligence. And in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, supra, the Court held that the same is true of longshoremen. [Footnote 2/2] The logic
"injury caused by unseaworthiness of the vessel or its appurtenant appliances and equipment, has been the settled law since this Court's ruling to that effect in The Osceola, supra, [189 U.S. 158], 189 U. S. 175."
Petitioner sought to recover in this action upon two theories: negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. The District Court dismissed the unseaworthiness claim in the complaint, and petitioner appealed. Although petitioner seemed to recognize that the order was not appealable, [Footnote 3/1] the Court of Appeals, overruling respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed on the merits, and this Court granted certiorari over respondent's showing that the Court of Appeals should not have entertained the appeal. The Court substantially affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and the parties are remanded to a trial on the merits, but only after they have incurred needless delay and expense in consequence of the loose practices sanctioned by the Court of Appeals and, in turn, by this Court. This case thus presents a striking example of the vice inherent in a system which
1. The Court relies on the discretionary right of a district court to certify an interlocutory order to the court of appeals under § 1292(b) when the "order involves a controlling question of law," but the District Court in its discretion -- and rightly, it turns out -- did not make such a certification in this case, [Footnote 3/4] and the Court of Appeals,
337 U.S. at 337 U. S. 546. It is clear in this case that, had petitioner proceeded to trial and won on her Jones Act claim, her asserted cause of action for unseaworthiness would have merged in the judgment. See Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316. Conversely, her claim would have been preserved for appeal had she lost on her Jones Act claim. Surely the assertion that petitioner is entitled to submit her unseaworthiness theory to the jury is not collateral to rights asserted in her action, so as to entitle her to an appeal before trial.
Compare Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104, at 379 U. S. 110. The presence of the brother and sisters, ante, p. 379 U. S. 153 of the Court's opinion, cannot somehow serve to make the District Court order final. They were parties only to the mandamus proceeding, Court's opinion, ante, pp. 379 U. S. 151-152, n. 7, their claims were not severable from petitioner's, id., p. 379 U. S. 153, and the merit of their claims likewise depended on a holding that Lindgren was overruled, see n. 4, supra. I can see no "injustice" resulting to the brother and sisters by delaying review of the order until after final judgment which is not also present with respect to petitioner.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: GILLESPIE V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 379 U. S. 148 (1964)