Essay by Ugo Colella
Twelve-year-old Natalie Calhoun was killed while riding a jet ski off the coast of Puerto Rico, where she was vacationing with family friends. Natalie's parents brought a wrongful-death action in federal court pursuant to Pennsylvania's wrongful-death and survival statutes. The Calhouns claimed that state statutes, rather than substantive general maritime law, governed their claim. Accordingly, the Calhouns asserted theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty and sought damages for loss of society, lost future earnings, funeral expenses, and loss of future support and services. The district court rejected the Calhouns' claim, holding that their cause of action was governed by the general maritime law, and in particular, Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., which provided a wrongful-death action for deaths occurring within state territorial waters. The Third Circuit reversed. In an extraordinary opinion, the court held that Moragne did not apply to nonseamen killed in state territorial waters.
This Court has affirmed the Third Circuit. Three justifications underlie the majority's decision. First, after reviewing the history of this Court's general maritime wrongful-death jurisprudence, the majority has concluded that Moragne did not preclude the application of state statutes for maritime claims arising out of deaths occurring within state territorial waters. Second, this Court has stated that the uniformity concerns expressed in Moragne only apply “to the availability of unseaworthiness as a basis of liability” and that the Moragne Court “did not reexamine the soundness of The Harrisburg out of concern that state damage awards in maritime wrongful death cases were excessive, or that variations in the remedies afforded by the States threatened to interfere with the harmonious operation of maritime law.” Finally, the majority has asserted that permitting nonseamen to recover under state wrongful-death statutes properly extends special solicitude to those who come within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. None of these rationales support the majority's conclusion.
About the Author
Ugo Colella. Law Clerk to the Honorable Carl E. Stewart, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. B.A. 1989, Stanford University; J.D. 1996, Tulane Law School.
Citation
71 Tul. L. Rev. 203 (1996)