Court Opinion

ID: 9427231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:04.93123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:04.005481
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Maeshall,
with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun joins,
dissenting.
Just a few years ago, in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573 (1974), this Court held that, “under the maritime wrongful-death remedy, [a] decedent’s dependents may recover damages for their loss of . . . society . . . .” Id., at 584. The fact that the injury there occurred within three miles of shore, in the territorial waters of a State, had no bearing on the decision at the time it was rendered, as the majority today recognizes, ante, at 622-623. Nor did we place any emphasis on the situs of injury when we first upheld the maritime wrongful-death remedy, as a matter of “general maritime law,” in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375, 409 (1970). Today the Court takes a narrow and unwarranted view of these cases, limiting them to their facts and making the availability of recovery for loss of society turn solely on a ship’s distance from shore at the time of the injury causing death.
A unanimous Court concluded in Moragne that the distance of a ship from shore is a fortuity unrelated to the reasons for allowing a seaman’s family to recover damages upon his death. See id., at 395-396, 405. These reasons are rooted in the traditions of maritime law, which has always shown “a special solicitude for the welfare of those men who undertake] to *627venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages.” Id., at 387. See also Gaudet, supra, at 588 (“humanitarian policy of the maritime law”). In light of this “special solicitude,” Mr. Justice Harlan examined in Moragne a number of “anomalies,” 398 U. S., at 395-396, that had resulted from the earlier rule of The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 (1886), under which the availability of a cause of action for wrongful death at sea depended entirely on the existence of a statutory remedy.
The “anomaly” most relevant for present purposes was that “identical breaches of the duty to provide a seaworthy ship, resulting in death, produce [d] liability outside the three-mile limit — since a claim under the Death on the High Seas Act may be founded on unseaworthiness . . . —but not within the territorial waters of a State whose local statute exclude [d] unseaworthiness claims.” 398 U. S., at 395. The Moragne Court found “much force” in the argument of the United States (appearing as amicus curiae) that this difference in treatment based on location of the injury could not be supported by any “rational policy,” especially since the underlying duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel is a federal one. Id., at 395-396. Accordingly, because of this anomaly and others, the Court in Moragne declined to adhere any longer to “a rule unjustified in reason, which produces different results for breaches of duty in situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.” Id., at 405.
The Court today establishes a rule that, like the pre-Moragne rule, “produces different results ... in situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.” When death arises from injuries occurring within a State’s territorial waters, dependents will be able to recover for loss of society under the “humanitarian” rule of Gaudet. 414 U. S., at 588. But once a vessel crosses the imaginary three-mile line, the seaman’s dependents no longer have a remedy for an identical loss, occasioned by an identical breach of duty. Instead, they may recover only pecuniary losses, which are allowed them by the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U. S. C. § 762.
*628The irony implicit in the Court’s result is readily apparent. As in the pr e-Moragne situation, the benefits available to a seaman’s dependents will once again vary depending on whether the injury causing death occurs in state territorial waters or on the high seas. Now, however, more generous benefits will be available if the injury occurs in state waters. We have thus come full circle from Moragne, which was designed to eliminate reliance on an artificial three-mile line as the basis for disparate treatment of dependents of similarly situated seamen. There is undoubtedly a certain symmetry in the Court’s return to the pr e-Moragne anomalies, but it is a symmetry that is both patently unfair to a seaman’s dependents and flatly inconsistent with the spirit of Moragne and Gaudet.
The dictates of fairness and the words of this Court would all be beside the point, of course, if Congress could^be said to have made a determination to disallow any recovery except pecuniary loss with regard to deaths arising on the high seas. But Congress made no such determination when it passed DOHSA. Congress was writing in 1920 against the background of The Harrisburg, under which a remedy for death on the high seas depended entirely on the existence of a statute allowing recovery. This rule left many dependents without any remedy and was viewed as “a disgrace to civilized people.” By enacting DOHSA, Congress sought to “bring our maritime law into line with the laws of those enlightened nations which confer a right of action for death at sea.” S. Rep. No. 216, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1919); H. R. Rep. No. 674, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1920), quoted in Moragne, supra, at 397.
The Court today uses this ameliorative, remedial statute as the foundation of a decision denying a remedy. It purports to find, in the section of DOHSA that provides for “fair and just compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained,” 46 U. S. C. § 762, a “considered judgment” by Congress that recovery must be limited to pecuniary loss, ante, at 625-, Nothing in this *629section, however, states that recovery must be so limited; certainly Congress was principally concerned, not with limiting recovery, but with ensuring that those suing under DOHSA were able to recover at least their pecuniary loss. As Representative Montague stated in the House debate, the Act was meant to provide a cause of action “in cases where there is now no remedy.” 59 Cong. Rec. 4486 (1920). See generally S. Rep. No. 216, supra, at 2-5; H. R. Rep. No. 674, supra, at 2-4; 59 Cong. Rec. 4482-4486 (1920). See also Moragne, 398 U. S., at 393 (DOHSA was designed “to furnish [a] remedy denied by the courts”).
Although recognizing that DOHSA was a response to The Harrisburg, ante, at 620, the majority opinion otherwise ignores the legislative history of the Act. The fundamental premise of the opinion — that Congress meant to “limi[t] survivors to recovery of their pecuniary losses,” ante, at 623 — is simply assumed. Today's decision thus stands in sharp contrast to Moragne, where Mr. Justice Harlan carefully surveyed the legislative history and then concluded that “no intention appears that the Act have the effect of foreclosing any non-statutory federal remedies that might be found appropriate to effectuate the policies of general maritime law.” 398 U. S., at 400.
Because there is no congressional directive to foreclose nonstatutory remedies, I believe that maritime law principles require us to uphold the remedy for loss of society at issue here. The general approach that mandates this result was stated over 100 years ago by Mr. Chief Justice Chase, sitting on circuit, in a passage that has since been quoted in both Moragne and Oaudet:
“[CJertainly it better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and inflexible rules.” The Sea Gull, 21 F. *630Cas. 909, 910 (No. 12,578) (CC Md. 1865), quoted in 398 U. S., at 387; 414 U. S., at 583.
In the instant case we have no “established and inflexible rule”; we have at most an expression of the minimum recovery that must be available to.the dependents of a seaman who dies on the high seas. When DOHSA is read against the background out of which it arose — rather than as if it had been written after Moragne and Gaudet — it becomes apparent that Congress did not mean to exclude the possibility of recovery beyond pecuniary loss.
The only remaining issue is whether allowing recovery for loss of society would be “appropriate to effectuate the policies of general maritime law.” Moragne, supra, at 400. This issue was resolved in Gaudet, where we stated, without any situs qualifications, that recovery for loss of society is not merely “appropriate to effectuate” maritime law policies but is “compelled” by them. 414 U. S., at 588. I would follow Gaudet in this case and thereby avoid the creation of a new and unfair “anomaly” of the type that Moragne was intended to eliminate.
Accordingly, I dissent.