Opinion ID: 683225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DOHSA/General Maritime Law

Text: 4 The district court concluded that the provisions of DOHSA governed this action. That determination involves a question of law subject to de novo review. See Havens v. F/T Polar Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 217 (9th Cir.1993) (all legal conclusions of district court sitting in admiralty examined de novo). Section 1 of DOHSA provides that 5 [w]henever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act ... occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may maintain a suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty.... 6 46 U.S.C. Sec. 761. 7 It is undisputed that Howard died as the result of a wrongful act that occurred beyond a marine league [i.e., three nautical miles] from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States[.] See id. Accordingly, and in order to determine whether the district court correctly applied DOHSA as the exclusive remedy in this wrongful death action, see Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 232-33, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2499-2500, 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986), we must answer the question of whether something that happens within the territorial waters of a foreign state occurs on the high seas for purposes of DOHSA. 8 We are aware of only two reported decisions from this Circuit that have touched on the question of the meaning of high seas under DOHSA. In Roberts v. United States, 498 F.2d 520 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 656, 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974), we indicated, without deciding, that DOHSA's high seas could be read as applying to foreign territorial waters. See id at 527 n. 7 (Because Congress only has power to fix the extent of territorial waters measured from the shores of its own country it may well have considered all waters beyond one marine league from those shores to be 'high seas' for purposes of DOHSA so long as navigable, even though within the territorial waters of a foreign state.). Nine years later we again discussed, but did not decide, the issue in Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 893, 895 n. 3 (9th Cir.1983) (It is not clear whether such tortious acts [i.e., those occurring within the territorial waters of foreign states] fall within the purview of the DOHSA.) (citing Roberts). 9 While it is true that we have not previously disposed of this precise question, the clear weight of authority rejects the appellant's position. See, e.g., 2 Ellen M. Flynn, et al., Benedict on Admiralty Sec. 81c, at 7-11 n. 20 (7th ed. 1993) (It appears to be settled that the term 'High Seas' within the meaning of DOHSA is not limited to international waters, but includes the territorial waters of a foreign nation as long as they are more than a marine league away from any United States shore.); Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law Sec. 7-2, at 238 (1987) (DOHSA applies even [to] those killed in foreign territorial waters.) (footnote omitted). Accord Sanchez v. Loffland Bros., 626 F.2d 1228, 1230 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (seaman killed in Venezuela), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3112, 69 L.Ed.2d 974 (1981); Public Admin'r of New York County v. Angela Compania Naviera, S.A., 592 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.) (Greek seaman from Liberian-Panamanian ship died in Greece after sailing in Indian, Pakistani, and Japanese waters), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct. 15, 61 L.Ed.2d 897 (1979); Jennings v. Boeing Co., 660 F.Supp. 796, 803-804 & n. 9 (E.D.Pa.) (helicopter crash in Scottish waters), as modified on reh'g, 677 F.Supp. 803 (1987), aff'd, 838 F.2d 1206 (3d Cir.1988); Kuntz v. Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, Ltd., 573 F.Supp. 1277, 1280 (W.D.Pa.1983) (scuba diving accident in Bahamian waters), aff'd, 738 F.2d 423 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 858, 105 S.Ct. 188, 83 L.Ed.2d 121 (1984); First & Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Adams, 1979 A.M.C. 2860, 2863-64 (E.D.Va.1979) (plane crash in Canadian waters), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 644 F.2d 878 (4th Cir.1981); Kunreuther v. Outboard Marine Corp., 757 F.Supp. 633, 634 (E.D.Pa.1991) (snorkeling accident in Jamaican waters); Moyer v. Klosters Rederi, 645 F.Supp. 620, 623-24 (S.D.Fla.1986) (cruise ship passenger died after snorkeling in Mexican waters); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Bombay, 531 F.Supp. 1175, 1182-84 (W.D.Wash.1982) (plane crash in Indian waters); Cormier v. Williams/Sedco/Horn Constructors, 460 F.Supp. 1010, 1011-12 (E.D.La.1978) (seaman drowned in Peruvian river); Mancuso v. Kimex, Inc., 484 F.Supp. 453, 454-55 (S.D.Fla.1980) (plane crash in Jamaican waters); Hamill v. Olympic Airways, S.A., 398 F.Supp. 829, 834 (D.D.C.1975) (plane crash in Greek waters) (implicit in dictum). 10 Applying the above authorities to the facts of this case, we conclude that there is nothing inherently absurd with the notion of an American court applying American law to an action filed by an American plaintiff against an American defendant, particularly when the law in question was expressly designed to cover wrongful deaths occurring outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err by applying DOHSA as the exclusive remedy here. 1 See Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. at 232-33, 106 S.Ct. at 2499-2500.