Opinion ID: 798089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evolution of the Maritime Wrongful Death Cause of Action

Text: 9 In 1886, the Supreme Court held in The Harrisburg that there was no cause of action for wrongful death in maritime law. 5 The harshness of this holding was softened by the Supreme Court's later ruling in The Hamilton, in which the Court held that suits grounded in state wrongful death causes of action could be brought in the federal courts when the death occurred in a state's territorial waters. 6 Although federal courts began uniformly appl[ying] state wrongful death statutes for deaths occurring in state territorial waters, 7 The Harrisburg 's proscription against maritime wrongful death actions survived. 10 In 1920, however, Congress rejected wholesale the rule against wrongful death 8 when it enacted the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). The Jones Act created a wrongful death cause of action, sounding in negligence, when a seaman is killed during the course of his employment 9 ; DOHSA created a similar cause of action, sounding in either negligence or unseaworthiness, when anyone is killed on the high seas ( i.e., outside territorial waters), whether or not death occurs during the course of employment. 10 Both of these statutes limit recovery for wrongful death to pecuniary damages. 11 11 This series of events produced three anomalies: (1) [I]n territorial waters, general maritime law allowed a remedy for unseaworthiness resulting in injury, but not for death; (2) DOHSA allowed a remedy for death resulting from unseaworthiness on the high seas, but general maritime law did not allow such recovery for a similar death in territorial waters; and (3) in those States whose statutes allowed a claim for wrongful death resulting from unseaworthiness, recovery was available for the death of a longshoreman due to unseaworthiness, but not for the death of a Jones Act seaman. 12 In Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., the Supreme Court remedied these anomalies by overruling The Harrisburg and recognizing the existence of a general maritime wrongful death action. 13 The Court reasoned that [w]here death is caused by the breach of a duty imposed by federal maritime law, Congress has established [through the passage of the Jones Act and DOHSA] a policy favoring recovery in the absence of a legislative direction to except a particular class of cases. 14 12 Although Moragne recognized a general maritime wrongful death cause of action, it did not define the contours of such a claim. Then, in Sea-Land Services Inc. v. Gaudet, 15 the Court addressed a claim that had been asserted by the widow of a longshoreman who died as a result of injuries sustained in territorial waters. The Supreme Court held that the maritime wrongful death cause of action allowed the decedent's dependents [to] recover damages for their loss of support, services, and society, as well as funeral expenses. 16 In so holding, the Court recognized that allowing a claim for loss of society damages deviated from DOHSA's limitation of recovery to pecuniary damages, but it nevertheless determined that such a result was compelled if [the Court was] to shape the remedy to comport with the humanitarian policy of the maritime law to show `special solicitude' for those who are injured within its jurisdiction. 17 Thus, the Gaudet Court recognized that effectuating longstanding maritime policies trumped uniformity with DOHSA. 18 13 Four years after it decided Gaudet, the Court began to reverse course when it decided Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 19 another case addressing the limits of the Moragne wrongful death cause of action. In Higginbotham, the Court gave priority to the goal of achieving uniformity between general maritime law and the Jones Act and DOHSA over the humanitarian goal of maritime law. Acknowledging that Gaudet had been broadly written without express reliance on the fact that the death occurred in territorial waters, the Court nevertheless concluded that Gaudet applied only to deaths that occurred on territorial waters. 20 Thus, as Higginbotham involved a death that occurred on the high seas, DOHSA and its express limitation on damages, rather than Gaudet, determined the damages available in the Moragne action. Accordingly, the Court held that the decedent's survivor could not recover damages for loss of society. 21 14 The Court was again called on to interpret the scope of damages recoverable in a maritime wrongful death action in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. 22 In Miles, the mother of a seaman who had died in territorial waters brought a wrongful death action, alleging negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, damages for loss of society. The jury found that the ship owner had been negligent but that the ship was seaworthy. It also found that the decedent's mother was not dependent on the decedent, so that she was not entitled to damages for loss of society. 23 15 On appeal to this court, the panel concluded as a matter of law that the ship had been unseaworthy, reviving the maritime wrongful death claim. The panel therefore addressed whether the decedent's non-dependent mother was entitled to recover for loss of society. Relying on an earlier Fifth Circuit opinion, we held in Miles that the mother was not entitled to such damages because she had not been financially dependent on her son. 24 16 The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment that the plaintiff in Miles was not entitled to recover for loss of society, but did so on different grounds. After again reviewing the teleology of the wrongful death cause of action, the Court held that loss of society damages are not recoverable in a general maritime action for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman. 25 Noting that there is no right of recovery whatsoever for loss of society in a Jones Act action, the Court reasoned that [i]t would be inconsistent with [the Court's] place in the constitutional scheme were [it] to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially created cause of action in which liability is without fault than Congress has allowed in cases of death resulting from negligence. 26 Accordingly, held the Court, there is no recovery for loss of society in a general maritime action for the wrongful death of a Jones Act seaman.