Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAdmiraltyWrongful DeathMaritime Lawadmiraltymaritime wrongful deathunseaworthinessThe Harrisburg

Facts

Edward Moragne, a longshoreman, was killed while working aboard the vessel Palmetto State in navigable waters within Florida. His widow sued the vessel owner for wrongful death and for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering, alleging both negligence and unseaworthiness. The vessel owner and the employer argued that maritime law provided no wrongful-death recovery in state territorial waters and that Florida's wrongful-death statute did not cover unseaworthiness. The Florida Supreme Court answered that the state statute did not permit recovery for unseaworthiness, and the lower federal courts dismissed that portion of the claim.

Issue

Whether general maritime law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful death caused by violation of maritime duties, so that recovery may be had for a death in state territorial waters notwithstanding The Harrisburg and without depending on state wrongful-death law. More specifically, the Court considered whether The Harrisburg should continue to be followed.

Rule

An action lies under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties. The prior rule of The Harrisburg denying a maritime wrongful-death cause of action is overruled, and the Death on the High Seas Act does not preclude recognition of such a general maritime remedy in situations not covered by that Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boston Harbor, a harbor mechanic employed by Seacliff Cargo Services is killed when a shipboard hatch cover fails because the vessel was unseaworthy. His sister, acting as personal representative, sues the vessel owner, Norhaven Shipping Co., in federal court. Massachusetts law would allow wrongful-death recovery only for negligence, not for unseaworthiness.

Which is the strongest argument for allowing the wrongful-death claim to proceed?

Explanation. The majority held that an action lies under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties, including unseaworthiness. The remedy no longer depends on whether the relevant state wrongful-death statute happens to encompass that federal maritime duty. (Derived from Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. (1970).)