Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.

Last updated

Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970) is a United States Supreme Court case addressing the remedies under federal maritime law for tortious deaths on state territorial waters.

Contents

Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 4, 1970
Decided June 15, 1970
Full case nameMoragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
Docket no. 175
Citations398 U.S. 375 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Holding
An action does lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Case opinion
MajorityHarlan, joined by Burger, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall
Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Facts

The petitioner's husband was a longshoreman on board the vessel Palmetto State when a hatch beam became disengaged and fell, striking the decedent in the head and causing his death. The petitioner brought suit as his widow and representative to recover damages for wrongful death from States Marine Lines, Inc., the owner of the vessel. The petitioner's based her claims upon negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel, alleging that a defective locking arrangement caused the hatch to fall. [1] The Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida determined that the applicable Florida wrongful death statute did not include the concept of unseaworthiness and dismissed the petitioner's claims. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [2]

Opinion

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice John M. Harlan II, the Supreme Court overruled the prior controlling case of The Harrisburg (1886), which denied recovery under general maritime law for wrongful death on navigable waters. In The Harrisburg the court had held that the common law doctrine of no recovery would be incorporated in toto into maritime law, which meant that no remedy was allowed for wrongful death in general maritime law unless there was some statute that specifically granted such a remedy. [3] Moragne eliminated many of the disparities of maritime death law and allowed claimants to assert wrongful death claims based on unseaworthiness by authority of general maritime law independent of statutory reliance. [4]

A companion case, Raskin v. P. D. Marchessini, Inc., was vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Moragne. [5]

Related Research Articles

Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Wrongful deathclaim is a claim against a person who can be held liable for a death. The claim is brought in a civil action, usually by close relatives, as enumerated by statute. In wrongful death cases, survivors are compensated for the harm and losses they've suffered after losing a loved one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merchant Marine Act of 1920</span> US federal law

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage. It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

Disgorgement is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the act of giving up something on demand or by legal compulsion."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal enclave</span> Parcel of land which is within a state but under federal jurisdiction

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States". In 1960, the year of the latest comprehensive inquiry, 7% of federal property had enclave status. Of the land with federal enclave status, 57% was under "concurrent" state jurisdiction. The remaining 43%, on which some state laws do not apply, was scattered almost at random throughout the United States. In 1960, there were about 5,000 enclaves, with about one million people living on them. While a comprehensive inquiry has not been performed since 1960, these statistics are likely much lower today, since many federal enclaves were military bases that have been closed and transferred out of federal ownership.

Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

The status of a seaman in admiralty law provides maritime workers with protections such as payment of wages, working conditions, and remedies for workplace injuries under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, and the doctrines of "unseaworthiness" and "maintenance and cure". Each of these remedies have the same criteria for the status of "seaman". Having the status of "seaman" provides maritime employees with benefits that are not available to those without the status. However, the determination of who is a "seaman" is complex.

Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964), was a Supreme Court case that held that pre-trial appeals may be made on non-final issues if the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies a question of controlling law to the appellate court and the appellate court allows the appeal.

Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the enforcement of forum selection clauses.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a New York protectionist law which prohibits licensure to suppliers who are alleged will create “destructive competition” in the local market to violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Norfolk Shipbuilding Drydock Corporation v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811 (2001), is a Supreme Court case addressing whether the a cause of action for negligence exists under maritime law.

References

  1. "Setting Sail with Wrongful Death: An Action Does Lie Under General Maritime Law for Death Caused by Violation of Maritime Duties -- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 90 S. Ct. 1772 (1970)". California Western International Law Journal. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  2. "Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970)". Justia. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  3. "The Impact of Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., on General Maritime Law". North Carolina Central Law Review. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  4. "Admiralty - Wrongful Death. Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 90 S. Ct. 1772 (1970)". William and Mary Law Review. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  5. 399 U.S. 519 (1970).