398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339
Edward Moragne was a longshoreman employed by Gulf Florida Terminal Company.1 On April 23, 1967, he was killed while working aboard the vessel Palmetto State in the Port of Miami, Florida.2 A beam supporting hatch covers fell on him during the stowage of a cargo of fertilizer.3
Petitioner, his widow and representative of his estate, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, against respondent States Marine Lines, Inc., the vessel owner.4 She sought damages for wrongful death and for pain and suffering prior to death.5 The claims rested on theories of both negligence and unseaworthiness.6
States Marine removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.7 It filed a third-party complaint against Gulf Florida Terminal Company.8 The complaint asserted that any negligence or unseaworthiness resulted from Gulf's stevedoring operations.9
Both defendants moved to dismiss the wrongful-death claim based on unseaworthiness.10 The District Court dismissed the unseaworthiness portion of the complaint, citing The Tungus v. Skovgaard, and certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).11 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether the Florida wrongful-death statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.01, encompassed unseaworthiness.12 The state court answered in the negative.13 On return to the Court of Appeals, that court affirmed the dismissal.14 Earlier related proceedings in state court had produced an affirmance by the Florida District Court of Appeal, 236 So. 2d 80, and denial of certiorari by the Florida Supreme Court, 239 So. 2d 829.15 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.16
Whether the rule of The Harrisburg that maritime law does not afford a cause of action for wrongful death should be overruled?17
The rule of The Harrisburg is overruled because it rests on no principle intrinsic to maritime law, conflicts with modern legislation and state practice, has produced incongruous results, and lacks justification after the widespread legislative abrogation of the common-law rule against recovery for wrongful death.18
Yes. The established facts show that on April 23, 1967, Edward Moragne, a longshoreman, was killed aboard the vessel Palmetto State in Florida territorial waters when a beam fell on him during cargo stowage.19 This prompted his widow to sue the vessel owner for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness and negligence after removal to federal court and dismissal of the unseaworthiness claim under The Tungus.20
The rule of The Harrisburg, which denied any maritime wrongful-death action, is applied to these facts and found incompatible because the death occurred in navigable waters where federal maritime duties of seaworthiness apply.21 Yet the old rule would bar recovery despite the legislative trend evidenced by the Jones Act, Death on the High Seas Act, and state statutes that now universally permit recovery.22
The facts of the procedural path through state court affirmance, Florida Supreme Court denial of certiorari, Fifth Circuit affirmance, and Supreme Court certiorari confirm that the anomaly of allowing recovery for injury but not death from the same breach of maritime duty directly illustrates the rule's injustice.23 Application of the rule to the named facts of the longshoreman's employment by Gulf Florida Terminal Company and the vessel owner's third-party claim produces the very incongruity the Court rejects, as the unseaworthiness claim would survive for nonfatal injury but fail for death solely due to the location within state waters.24
The rule of The Harrisburg should be overruled.25
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black filed a concurring statement in which he fully endorsed the majority's decision to overrule The Harrisburg.26 He emphasized that he had long maintained the view that The Harrisburg was wrongly decided from its inception and had no sound foundation in maritime law.27 Justice Black expressed his satisfaction that the Court had at last corrected this longstanding error, thereby aligning general maritime law with contemporary principles that permit recovery for wrongful death.28
His brief concurrence highlights a consistent personal stance over many years that the common-law prohibition on such actions was an unjustifiable anomaly that deserved repudiation.29
Whether an action for wrongful death caused by unseaworthiness of a vessel lies under the general maritime law?30
An action for wrongful death caused by unseaworthiness lies under the general maritime law.31 This follows because the overruling of The Harrisburg removes the bar to recovery for violations of federally imposed maritime duties.32 The existing body of general maritime law governing personal injuries extends to fatal cases without creating new substantive rules.33
Yes. The established facts establish that the death of Edward Moragne was caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel Palmetto State in navigable waters within Florida when the hatch cover beam fell during fertilizer stowage.34 The complaint alleged unseaworthiness alongside negligence after the case reached federal court via removal and third-party complaint against the stevedore employer.35
Application of the rule to these facts confirms that the unseaworthiness claim is maintainable because the primary duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is federal and the facts show the incident occurred aboard the vessel during traditional longshore work, placing it squarely within maritime jurisdiction.36 The procedural history of dismissal under The Tungus and subsequent appeals demonstrates that once The Harrisburg is removed, the general maritime law supplies the remedy for the breach that caused death, consistent with the extension of seaworthiness duties to longshoremen.37
The facts of the Florida Supreme Court's negative answer on the state statute and the Fifth Circuit's affirmance further illustrate that the federal maritime action now fills the gap without reliance on state law for the existence of the claim.38
An action for wrongful death caused by unseaworthiness lies under the general maritime law.
Whether the measure of recovery in a wrongful-death action under general maritime law is to be determined by reference to the statutes of the State in which the wrongful act or omission occurred?39
In the absence of a controlling federal statute, the measure of recovery in a wrongful-death action under general maritime law is to be determined by reference to the statutes of the State in which the wrongful act or omission occurred.4041 The Tungus resolved the source of substantive rules without addressing the existence of the cause of action itself.42
Yes. The established facts place the wrongful act aboard the vessel in the Port of Miami, Florida, where the beam fell on Edward Moragne during cargo operations.43 The suit initially invoked the Florida wrongful-death statute alongside general maritime law after removal and certification to the Florida Supreme Court on the scope of Fla. Stat. § 768.01.4445
Application of the rule to these facts shows that the measure of recovery draws from Florida law because the death occurred within state territorial waters and The Tungus directs reference to the state statute for the integrated right of action, even as the existence of the federal claim is now recognized independently.4647 The facts of the state court's negative ruling on unseaworthiness under the Florida statute and the subsequent federal appeals confirm that state law governs the contours of recovery while the federal maritime law supplies the underlying duty.48
The procedural posture through interlocutory appeal and certiorari underscores that the state reference remains appropriate for damages and beneficiaries without disturbing the new federal cause of action.49
The measure of recovery in a wrongful-death action under general maritime law is to be determined by reference to the statutes of the State in which the wrongful act or omission occurred.
Whether The Tungus v. Skovgaard should be overruled?50
The Tungus v. Skovgaard should not be overruled because it was an appropriate resolution of the source of substantive rules to be applied in a wrongful-death action under general maritime law and represents a reasonable accommodation of state and federal interests that has stood for more than a decade.51
No. The established facts show that the death occurred in Florida territorial waters aboard the Palmetto State, leading to invocation of the Florida statute and certification to the Florida Supreme Court, which held that the state wrongful-death act did not encompass unseaworthiness, followed by Fifth Circuit affirmance relying on The Tungus.52
Application of the rule to these facts demonstrates that The Tungus should stand because it addressed only the choice of substantive law once a cause of action exists, and the facts of the state court's interpretation of Fla. Stat. § 768.01 illustrate the ongoing utility of state-law integration for the measure of recovery without requiring federal courts to create an entirely new body of rules.53 The procedural history of removal on diversity, third-party complaint, and interlocutory appeal confirms that The Tungus provided a workable framework that the Court retains to avoid disrupting settled expectations regarding state statutes in territorial waters.54
The facts of the longshoreman's employment and the vessel's location within Florida further support retaining The Tungus as it allows the federal maritime duty to operate while borrowing state remedial details.55
The Tungus v. Skovgaard should not be overruled.56