Opinion ID: 76223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Moragne: Wrongful Death under General Maritime Law

Text: 8 In Moragne, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in The Harrisburg 3 and created a wrongful death action under general maritime law for deaths occurring in state territorial waters. 4 In doing so, the Supreme Court noted that Congress had enacted legislation to cover some but not all types of maritime wrongful deaths. Id. at 397-98, 90 S.Ct. 1772. Specifically, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) had created a wrongful death action but only for all persons killed on the high seas. 5 46 U.S.C.App. § 761 et seq. Similarly, the Jones Act provided only seamen a right of recovery against their employers for negligence resulting in injury or death. Moragne, 398 U.S. at 394, 90 S.Ct. 1772; 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. The Supreme Court observed, however, that Congress had not yet provided a statutory right of action for wrongful deaths occurring in state territorial waters. 6 Moragne, 398 U.S. at 397-98, 90 S.Ct. 1772. The Supreme Court reasoned that this was because Congress saw no need for such a federal statute because the States historically provided remedies for deaths occurring in their territorial waters. Id. at 398, 90 S.Ct. 1772. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that Congress's failure to extend [DOHSA] to cover such deaths primarily reflected the lack of necessity for coverage by a federal statute. Id. at 397, 90 S.Ct. 1772; see also Miles, 498 U.S. at 24-25, 111 S.Ct. 317. 9 The Supreme Court in Moragne then discussed at length how a transformation in maritime law had begun in 1944 and that the emergence of the strict liability claim of unseaworthiness in federal maritime law had created inconsistencies in recovery for deaths on the high seas versus recovery for deaths on territorial waters under state statutes. See Moragne, 398 U.S. at 399-400, 90 S.Ct. 1772. Thus, the Supreme Court in Moragne sought to eliminate these inconsistencies and render maritime wrongful death law uniform by creating a general maritime wrongful death action applicable in all waters, including state territorial waters. See id. at 401-02, 90 S.Ct. 1772. 10 In doing so in Moragne, the Supreme Court relied to a large extent on its determination that Congress enacted the Jones Act and DOHSA to further the constitutionally based principle that federal admiralty law should be `a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country.' 7 Id. at 402, 90 S.Ct. 1772 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court further reasoned that [o]ur recognition of a right to recover for wrongful death under general maritime law will assure uniform vindication of federal policies. 8 Id. at 401, 90 S.Ct. 1772. 11 The Supreme Court's conclusion in Moragne also was motivated, in part, by the maritime principle that special solicitude [be given] for the welfare of those men who undertook to venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages. Id. at 387, 90 S.Ct. 1772. The Supreme Court observed that federal maritime law, as it then-existed, actually disadvantaged Jones Act seamen. Moragne, 398 U.S. at 395-96, 90 S.Ct. 1772. Because the Jones Act preempts state law remedies for the death or injury of a seaman, the Supreme Court remarked that the `strangest' anomaly in maritime law was that a Jones Act seamen is provided no remedy for death caused by unseaworthiness within territorial waters, while a [nonseaman] ... does have such a remedy when allowed by a state statute. Id. at 395-96, 90 S.Ct. 1772 (emphasis added). Thus, the Supreme Court's recognition of a wrongful death action under general maritime law served to remedy a disparity for seamen that had existed prior to Moragne. See Miles, 498 U.S. at 30, 111 S.Ct. 317. In Moragne, the Supreme Court did not set forth the scope of the remedies available in a wrongful death action under general maritime law but left such development for future litigation. Moragne, 398 U.S. at 408, 90 S.Ct. 1772. 12