Opinion ID: 652879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Survival Action under Federal Maritime Law.

Text: 40 Magistrate Judge Latimer stated that the Wahlstroms had apparently abandoned at oral argument any conceivable claim for survival as opposed to wrongful death damages. 800 F.Supp. at 1065. On appeal to the district court and to this court, the Wahlstroms argued primarily for wrongful death damages pursuant to Connecticut law, but cited a survival case, Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 914, 108 S.Ct. 261, 98 L.Ed.2d 218 (1987), in both fora, and contended generally for wrongful death and survivorship benefits in their main brief to this court. We deem the issue of survivor damages preserved. 41 The distinction between survival and wrongful death actions was articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Miles as follows: 42 In a survival action, the estate or successors of a deceased person are allowed to prosecute a claim for personal injury that the deceased himself would have had but for his death. In a wrongful death action, the victim's dependents, not the victim, are allowed to recover for the harms they personally suffered as a result of the death, independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries. 43 882 F.2d at 985; see also Shield, 822 F.Supp. at 83. 44 The elements of damage ordinarily pursued in a survival action are pain and suffering inflicted upon the decedent prior to death, and loss of future earnings. The Wahlstroms may recover damages for their son's pain and suffering prior to death, to the extent that it can be established at trial. See Miles, 882 F.2d at 985; Evich, 819 F.2d at 257-58; P & E Boat Rentals, 872 F.2d at 649-50; Shield, 822 F.Supp. at 83 (collecting cases); Cantore, 799 F.Supp. at 1156; Kline, 791 F.Supp. at 462-67. Evich also allowed recovery by the decedent's estate for loss of future earnings, reasoning that in the absence of dependent beneficiaries, potential problems with double recovery do not exist, 819 F.2d at 258, and concluding that such a recovery  ' better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty. ' . Id. (quoting Moragne, 398 U.S. at 387 (quoting The Sea Gull, 21 F.Cas. 909, 910 (C.C.D.Md.1865) (No. 12,578))). Most of the decided cases, however, are to the contrary. 45 The Supreme Court disallowed such a recovery in Miles. See 498 U.S. at 33-37. The Court's analysis relied heavily upon the decedent's status as a seaman and the resultant applicability of the Jones Act, see id. at 35-36, but the announced conclusion of its opinion (unlike the companion ruling as to loss of society) was not confined to seamen. See id. at 37 (We ... hold that a general maritime survival action cannot include recovery for decedent's lost earnings.). 46 The circuit court ruling in Miles explicitly rejected Evich on this issue, 882 F.2d at 986, and concluded, without any reference to the decedent's seaman status, that the general maritime law does not permit a survival action for the decedent's lost future wages. Id. at 987. The court noted that most state survival statutes and the Jones Act do not allow recovery for lost wages, and that DOHSA provides no action for any kind of survivorship benefit. Id. 47 A number of district court opinions also preclude recovery for lost future earnings in a federal maritime action. See Shield, 822 F.Supp. at 83; Cantore, 799 F.Supp. at 1155; Kline, 791 F.Supp. at 462 (seaman). We concur, concluding that the Wahlstroms may claim damages for their son's pain and suffering prior to death, but not for lost earnings. Nor may damages be awarded for loss of enjoyment of life. See Shield, 822 F.Supp. at 83-84 (citing In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 807 F.Supp. 1073, 1080-83 (S.D.N.Y.1992)); see also In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 814 F.Supp. 592, 599 (E.D.Mich.1993). 48