Futch v. Midland Enterprises, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 June 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 71-4. |
Parties | John FUTCH, Individually and as Personal Representative of Cecil Futch v. MIDLAND ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
James A. George, Wendell G. Lindsay, George, Lindsay & Seago, Ltd., Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff.
George B. Matthews, Donald R. Abunza, Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer, Matthews & Schumacher, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
The defendants contend that since Mrs. Ann Futch is the duly qualified personal representative of the deceased, the plaintiff, John Futch, has no standing to bring this suit, and that therefore defendants are entitled to a summary judgment dismissing this suit. Plaintiff answers this contention by conceding that he is not the duly qualified personal representative of the deceased, and that therefore he is barred from bringing this suit under the Jones Act or the Death on the High Seas Act, but he asserts that in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970), he has a right of action for wrongful death under general maritime law entirely different in nature and apart from that asserted by the decedent's widow in her capacity of personal representative of the deceased. Therefore, the question before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment is whether or not, under the cause of action for wrongful death under maritime law recognized by Moragne, someone other than the personal representative of the deceased may bring an action.
While there are many unanswered questions as to the exact nature of the so-called Moragne-type general maritime cause of action, if indeed any such "new" right of action was in fact created, the Court here is only concerned with the question of whether or not this particular plaintiff has standing to bring this particular suit. We conclude that he does not.
Other than establishing some guidelines, the only definitive holdings in Moragne were that The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 S.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358 (1886) was overruled and that "An action does lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties." 90 S.Ct. at 1792. In response to the argument that overruling The Harrisburg would require the manufacturing of much law by lower courts to fill the void left by the absence of The Harrisburg, the Court said:
"We believe these fears are exaggerated, because our decision does not require the fashioning of a whole new body of federal law, but merely removes a bar to access to the existing general maritime law." 90 S.Ct. at 1790.
Later, in the same decision, the Court said:
"* * * the difficulties should be slight in applying accepted maritime law to actions for wrongful death." 90 S.Ct. at 1791.
When the Court, in Moragne, addressed itself to the question of who could be the beneficiaries in a so-called Moragne wrongful death action, it merely established some guidelines without expressly answering the question. The Court suggested that it might be proper to look at what Congress has done in connection with wrongful death actions under the Death on the High Seas Act, the Jones Act, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 909, in order to determine who should be beneficiaries in case of wrongful death under the general maritime law. While the Supreme Court in Moragne did not attempt to answer this question, they did suggest that uniformity should be a consideration.
In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc.
...375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339. See, e. g., Savoie v. Nolty J. Theriot, Inc., E.D.La.1972, 396 F.Supp. 973; Futch v. Midland Enterprises, Inc., M.D.La.1972, 344 F.Supp. 324, Aff'd, 5 Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 1195. In the few cases in which courts have allowed wrongful death suits to be maint......
-
Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corporation
...51, 59; 46 U.S.C.A. §§ 761, 762; Lindgren v. United States, supra; Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., supra; Futch v. Midland Enterprises, Inc., 344 F.Supp. 324 (M.D.La.1972), aff'd Jan. 8, 1973, unreported (No. 72-2900, 5th Cir.). The personal representative of each of the decedents may......
-
Savoie v. Nolty J. Theriot, Inc., Civ. A. No. 72-1178.
...plaintiffs herein have no right to bring the Moragne death action, if in fact such an action exists.7 Accord, Futch v. Midland Enterprises, Inc., 344 F.Supp. 324 (1972 M.D.La.). Accordingly, the motion of the defendant for summary judgment should be, and the same is hereby, 1 See Exhibit A ......
-
Futch v. Midland Enterprises, Inc., 72-2900 Summary Calendar.
...Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970). In granting summary judgment, the court below, 344 F.Supp. 324, concluded that the father had no standing to sue for Moragne-type damages, since he was not the personal representative of the decedent. ......