Legal Document

379 U.S. 148 85 Supreme Court Reporter 308 13 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 199 Mabel GILLESPIE, Administratrix, etc., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION. Number 10. Argued Oct. 13, 1964. Decided Dec. 7, [Syllabus from pages 148-149 intentionally omitted] Jack G. Day, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Thomas V. Koykka, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, administratrix estate her son Daniel Gillespie, brought this action in federal court against respondent shipower-employer to recover damages Gillespie's death, which was alleged have occurred when he fell and drowned while working as a seaman on respondent's ship docked Ohio. She claimed right benefit herself decedent's dependent brother sisters under Jones Act, subjects employers liability if by negligence they cause seaman's injury or death.1 also recovery Ohio wrongful death statute2 because vessel allegedly not seaworthy required 'general maritime law.' complaint addition sought pain suffering before died, based Act general law, causes petitioner said survived force itself survival statute,3 respectively. District Judge, holding that supplied exclusive remedy, motion struck all parts referred statutes unseaworthiness. He reference decedent, who had argued were beneficiaries entitled their mother living. 2 Petitioner immediately appealed Appeals. Respondent moved dismiss appeal ground ruling 'final' decision 28 Code KF62 § 1291 (1958 ed.).4 Thereupon administratrix, time joined sisters, filed Appeals petition mandamus other appropriate writ commanding Judge vacate his original order enter new one either denying strike alternative granting but including 'the requisite written statement effectively render appealable within provisions Annotated KF65 U5 1292(b),' statute providing certain interlocutory orders.5 Without definitely deciding whether would been case 'close' question appealability, proceeded determine controversy 'on merits though it submitted an appeal';6 felt free do since its resolution did prejudice any way, sustained contentions affirming Court's order.7 321 Federal Reporter, 2nd 518. here, we granted certiorari. 375 962, 84 487, 11 413. I. 3 In joins urging us hold (1858 ed.) does require can should decide validity strike. We agree. Under may be taken district court. But often has pointed out, meaning necessarily mean last possible made case. Cohen versus Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 545, 69 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528. And our cases long recognized is frequently so close issue way supported with equally forceful arguments, impossible devise formula resolve marginal coming what might well called 'twilight zone' finality. Because difficulty held requirement finality given 'practical rather than technical construction.' supra, U.S., at 546, S.Ct., 1226. See Brown Shoe company States, 370 294, 306, 82 1502, 1513, 8 510; Bronson LaCrosse & M. Railroad Co., Black 524, 531, 17 347, 359; Forgay Conrad, 6 How. 201, 203, 12 404; Dickinson Petroleum Conversion 338 507, 511, 70 322, 324, 94 299, out most important competing considerations are inconvenience costs piecemeal review hand danger justice delay other.' Such shown record us. It true 'piecemeal'; appear cost trying will greater decided issues raised instead compelling parties go trial them unanswered. cannot say chose wrongly circumstances. seems clear now eventual costs, recognize, certainly less pass questions presented here send back those undecided. Moreover, perhaps number years having brother's sisters' rights determined work great injustice them, claims cut off Judge's stands. formally severable make court's unquestionably appeable cf. there ample reason view several finality, particularly separate extraordinary relief. Cf. Swift Packers Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S.A., 339 684, 688—689, 861, 864—865, 1206; Gumbel Pitkin, 113 548, 5 616, 617, 1128. Furthermore, General Motors 323 373, 377, 65 357, 359, 89 311, contrary usual practice reviewed refusal permit proof items yet fully tried, 'fundamental further conduct case.' For these same reasons such Land Dollar, 330 731, 734, 67 1009, 1010, 91 1209, n. 2, Larson Domestic Foreign Commerce 682, 685, 1457, 1459, 1628, 3, where, tried. see 545—547, 1225—1226. think certified 1292(b) ed.), proper; light circumstances believe properly implemented policy Congress promote treating obviously final ed.). therefore proceed consider correctness Appeals' judgment. II. 4 1930 Lindgren 281 38, 50 207, 74 686, passing 33 Merchant Marine 1920, 46 688 commonly provided seamen killed course employment, superseding state otherwise applied deaths, and, gave only negligence, precluding theory A strong overrule unfair incongruous some later liberalized nonseamen unseaworthiness injuries, death.8 No cases, however, cast doubt interpretation Lindgren, careful study context then-existing admiralty principles, decisions statutes. prior existed no law seaman,9 authorize enforce.10 Congress, held, passed give uniform every seaman. 'It plain,' went say, 'that application intended bring about uniformity exercise jurisdiction Constitution, supersedes States.' 44, 210. Thirty-four decision, let stand it. reasonable then. remedy seamen, railroad workers Employers' Liability Act.11 Whatever special responsibility fashioning rules affairs,12 disturb settled plan liabilities established Act. argues even available erred refusing provides decedent mother. Their recovery, any, depends FELA, 45 51 shall be: 'for surviving widow husband children employee; none, then employee's parents; next kin upon employee * *.' 7 Chicago, baron Q.R. Wells-Dickey Trust 275 161, 163, 48 73, 72 216, Court, speaking through Brandeis, provision creates 'three classes beneficiaries. alternative. three; collectively.' asked members three death. Both courts below refused so, enough adhere holding, among agree plainly correct. Poff Pennsylvania R. 327 399, 66 603, 90 749. One aspect remains mentioned. 'decedent suffered severe personal injuries caused him excruciating mental anguish death.' contends claim survives statute. complaint, 'no substantial basis, case,' There is, course, 9 59 ed.),13 after '(a)ny chapter,' i.e., negligence. assume, past,14 injured person preserve unseaworthiness,15 survive law.16 stated entitling relied Corsair, 145 335, 348, 949, 952, 36 727, Louisiana drowning where interval 'about ten minutes' between accident could recovered there, saying: '* averment gather pains sufferings substantially cotemporaneous inseparable, matter it.' Plainly Corsair ever physical drowning. merely averments plaintiff justify awarding language preclude allowance laws, 'not day liberality allowing amendment pleadings achieve ends justice,17 finally basis mere pleading. Therefore facts remain open. respects judgment affirmed. 10 Affirmed. GOLDBERG, dissenting part. N Immigration Nationality Decisions disagree basic decision. precise point suit resulting maintained employer occurs waters State statutory 14 question, today preserves anomaly neither nor justification. high seas unseaworthiness, Mahnich Southern S.S. 96, 64 455, 88 561, Kernan American Dredging 355 426, 430, 78 394, 397, 382, 4; territorial sue McAllister Magnolia 357 221, 1201, 1272, Seas Shipping Sieracki, 328 85, 872, 1099; maintenance cure nonseaman's gives rise applicable both doctrine Tungus Skovgaard, 358 588, 79 503, 524. Only family survivors left without failure maintain recourse rule absolute relegated This disparity treatment characterized lower 'deplorable,' 'anomalous,' 'archaic,' 'unnecessary,' 'hard understand.' Fall esso Standard Oil 297 411, 417 (C.A.5th Cir.) (Wisdom, J.); Mortenson Pacific Far East Line, Inc., F.Supp. 71, 73 (D.C.N.D.Cal.); Gill 184 49, 57 (C.A.2d (L. Hand, J., dissenting). characterizations. 15 relies stare decisis holding—a which, my view, variance congressional intent enacting 'to provide liberal workers.' 432, 398. feel compels conclusion reached believe, first, dictum second, embodied overruled. 16 supply unseaworthiness—the presented—but libel acknowledged, 'does allege alone 47, 211. 18 actual precedential effect due remedies With quarrel. 41 Statutes-at-Large 1007, says 'statutes conferring regulating railway employees applicable' seamen's cases. 35 65, amended, §§ 51—60 replace related remedies. New York Central Winfield, 244 147, 37 61 1045. reasonably concluded incorporating standard pre-empts correctly 'based alone' On valid precedent followed. 19 46—47, Page 211: 20 'In foregoing accordance principles therein announced conclude Act—adopted paramount authority Act—establishes modification owners vessels extending territorially far go; operates uniformly comprehensive instances excludes liability, imposed; that, covers entire field exclusive, operation dealing subject. 21 results present resort Virginia Death Statute, create establish measure 22 'Nor indemnity Barford's old occasioned vessel. Aside fact alone, insuperable objection suggestion herein above stated, seaman, although vessel.' 23 apparent observation pre-empted distinguished purely simply obiter dictum. 606—607, 513—514 (opinion Brennan). Even English courts, more ridig own, dicta wise controlling.1 Surely consideration originally logic withstood test time. 24 fact, much reasoning supporting rejected subsequent rationale part 'covers exclusive.' ship's notwithstanding longshoremen.2 Learned Hand's comment inescapable: 25 'I find hard understand why ought forbidden instances. If seamen' 'is exclusive,' supersede arising result do?' 57. 26 answer question. wrong sweeping assertion exclusive. meant leave pre-existing untouched. intend Act—a remedial statute—to eliminate Osceola, 189 158, 175, 483, 47 760. owner liable 'injury appurtenant appliances equipment, (189 158) 175 (23 760).' 99, 457. 27 What additional denied ruled 'by beyond cure, officer member crew.' Ibid. (Emphasis added.) words, afforded negligence.' negligence; extent.3 supersede, holds, traditional Traditional 487; navigable opinion. 43, 209. Western Fuel Garcia, 257 233, 242, 42 89, 90, 29 Simple pre-empt similarly extent 30 Legislative history supports 31 waters, enacted High 537, U.S.C 761—768 occurring marine league shore State. expressly stipulates '(t)he giving affected chapter.' 538, 767 32 593, Stewart exception: 'The legislative discloses purpose 'unimpaired deaths S.Rep.No. 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; H.R.Rep.No. 674, 3. debate House Representatives preceding passage bill reflects deep concern power actions enactment law. Cong.Rec. 4482—4486.' 34 From expression purpose, longshoreman vessel's me strain credulity impute involving nonseamen. Yet following Lindgren. Finally, existence years, militates overruling follow duties standards liability; allow remedy. Shipowners currently ship; longshoremen anywhere unseaworthy shipowner maintaining water thus difficult reliance continuation legal deny humane justifiable Stare blind adherence irrational doctrine. very produce sense security system requiring satisfaction expectations. shoud needed, eliminating differences reason, still leaving underlying scheme unchanged, weakened strengthened. policies behind toward ignoring 38 designed workers,' perpetuated reverse grant relief cases—relief many indicated just proper 'in terms principles,' Esso 417, gladly accord unfortunate unnecessary compulsion 39 Since allows nothing majority minority recovery. stands way. reject reverse. 40 HARLAN, dissenting. regard 'finality' governing appellate appeals requires vacated remanded instructions one, hence reviewable stage litigation. two theories: dismissed appealed. Although seemed recognize appealable,1 Appeals, lack jurisdiction, affirmed certiorari over showing entertained appeal. affirms merits, incurred needless expense consequence loose practices sanctioned turn presents striking example vice inherent permits litigation lawsuit, avoid limiting appeals2 'final decisions' exceptions relevant.3 43 Manifestly lacked essential quality finality; involved interstitial rulings justifications tolerating departure requirements are, respect, unsatisfactory. 44 1. discretionary certify 'order involves controlling law,' discretion—and rightly turns out—did certification case,4 judgment, so. flexibility hardly lends support attempt obviate jurisdictional restrictions whenever erroneously entertains nonappealable hardship substantive here.5 2. 1528, different result. As 'where steps towards merge (and not) separable from, collateral to, asserted action, too independent deferred until whole adjudicated.' won claim, merged Baltimore Phillips, 274 316, 600, 71 1069. Conversely, preserved she lost claim. submit jury enitle trial. 'it undecided,' ante, 153, furnishes excuse avoidance rule. Essentially position instance, grants counsel brief argue merits. That, good sound judicial administration.6 remand directions petitioner's jurisdiction. Memorandum STEWART. 49 While HARLAN holds decides issues, join ed.): 'Any suffer employment may, election, jury, modifying common-law apply; representative section applicable. Jurisdiction defendant resides principal office located.' Rev.Code 2125.01. 2305.21. except direct Court.' Section provides: 'When judge, making civil section, difference immediate materially advance ultimate termination litigation, writing order. thereupon, discretion, order, days entry order: Provided, That hereunder stay proceedings unless judge thereof order.' 518, 532. To denial mandamus. See, e.g., 595, 508, 9; Pope Talbot, Incorporated Hawn, 346 406, 202, 98 143; 561. Chelentis Luckenbach 247 372, 501, 62 1171; Harrisburg, 119 199, 140, 358; Great Lakes Dredge Dock Kierejewski, 261 479, 418, 756; 210; Hamilton, 207 398, 133, 52 264. ed). Fitzgerald Lines 374 16, 20—21, 83 1646, 1650—1651, 720, cited. 291, chapter representative, employee, injury.' 'Presumably claims, accrued survive, least pertinent effective right.' 4. Curtis Atlantic Garcia y Cia., 241 30, 36—37, Law Reports, 1186 (C.A.3d Cir.); Holland Steag, 143 205 206 (D.C.D.Mass.). Just Chambers, 312 383, 668, 687, 903. Cortes Insular 287 367, 53 173, 77 368. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 15; Foman Davis, 371 178, 227, 222; Hougham, 364 310, 81 8; Conley Gibson, 41, 80. Catlett, Development Doctrine Decisis Extent Which Should Be Applied. Wash.L.Rev. 162. borrowed conscious 203 (D.C.D.Mass.) cited approval accord: McLaughlin Blidberg Rothchild 167 714 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.); rpeserve suffering, used analogy FELA followed exactly, pre-emption strict mixed state-federal liability. Nothing Winfield finding type pre-empted. After filed, unsuccessfully compel Distric 1292(b), Pages 151-152. defect arises 311; 1628; opinion, 153—154, entered reversed proceedings. Thus nonfinal clearly 1254(1) 1292 obtain control normally unsettled 1254(3) controlled tested posture, quite wanting chance re-evaluate Compare Schlagenhauf Holder, 104, 110, 234, 238. presence 153 somehow serve final. They proceeding, 151, 152, petitioner's, id., merit likewise depended overruled, 4, supra. 'injustice' delaying respect Understandably respondent, explained oral argument, certiorari; assumed petition, despite response thereto, interest

Classification Label: 7