Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 93-15489
Decision Date | 01 December 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-15489,93-15489 |
Citation | 41 F.3d 527 |
Parties | Vika L. HOWARD, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kenneth James Howard, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Rolf Howard, Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL CRUISES, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Allan S. Haley, Nevada City, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Walter T. Johnson, Lillick & Charles, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before: LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE, * District Judge.
This appeal arises out of an admiralty wrongful death action in which a widow appeals from the district court's entry of judgment in her favor, arguing that the court erred by applying a federal statute rather than general maritime law to her claim, and by miscalculating the economic impact to her of her husband's death. We reject these contentions and affirm.
In September 1990, Kenneth James Howard ("Howard"), his wife, Vika, and their son, Rolf, took a Mexican vacation cruise aboard the CRYSTAL HARMONY, a vessel of Bahamian registry operated by Crystal Cruises, Inc. ("Crystal"), a California corporation. While disembarking from the CRYSTAL HARMONY as it lay anchored within Mexican territorial waters, Howard suffered a severe laceration to his right Achilles tendon. He received emergency medical attention aboard the CRYSTAL HARMONY and underwent surgery in Acapulco to repair the damaged tendon. Less than a month after returning home to Sacramento, Howard suddenly fell ill and died. An autopsy revealed that blood clots from the injured area had lodged in his pulmonary arteries and fatally obstructed the flow of blood to his lungs.
Seven months later, Mrs. Howard filed the instant wrongful death action in federal district court against Crystal, asserting individual claims on behalf of herself, her son, and her mother-in-law, as well as claims on behalf of Howard's estate, under the general maritime law of the United States and the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C. App. Secs. 761-67. Following a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages totalling $373,379 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties then filed timely motions to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The court granted the motions and entered an amended judgment, again in favor of the plaintiffs, for $378,794 plus postjudgment interest. Mrs. Howard (hereafter, "appellant") has timely appealed from the amended judgment, arguing that the district court erred by applying DOHSA rather than the general maritime law, and by reducing the damages for lost income and services by 30% to reflect Howard's personal consumption.
The district court concluded that the provisions of DOHSA governed this action. That determination involves a question of law subject to de novo review. See Havens v. F/T Polar Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 217 (9th Cir.1993) ( ).
Section 1 of DOHSA provides that
[w]henever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act ... occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may maintain a suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty....
It is undisputed that Howard died as the result of a wrongful act that occurred "beyond a marine league [i.e., three nautical miles] from the shore of any State, or the District of Columbia, or the Territories or dependencies of the United States[.]" See id. Accordingly, and in order to determine whether the district court correctly applied DOHSA as the exclusive remedy in this wrongful death action, see Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 232-33, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2499-2500, 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986), we must answer the question of whether something that happens within the territorial waters of a foreign state occurs on the "high seas" for purposes of DOHSA.
We are aware of only two reported decisions from this Circuit that have touched on the question of the meaning of "high seas" under DOHSA. In Roberts v. United States, 498 F.2d 520 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 656, 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974), we indicated, without deciding, that DOHSA's "high seas" could be read as applying to foreign territorial waters. See id at 527 n. 7 (). Nine years later we again discussed, but did not decide, the issue in Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 893, 895 n. 3 (9th Cir.1983) () (citing Roberts).
While it is true that we have not previously disposed of this precise question, the clear weight of authority rejects the appellant's position. See, e.g., 2 Ellen M. Flynn, et al., Benedict on Admiralty Sec. 81c, at 7-11 n. 20 (7th ed. 1993) (); Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law Sec. 7-2, at 238 (1987) ( )(footnote omitted). Accord Sanchez v. Loffland Bros., 626 F.2d 1228, 1230 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (seaman killed in Venezuela), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3112, 69 L.Ed.2d 974 (1981); Public Admin'r of New York County v. Angela Compania Naviera, S.A., 592 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.) (Greek seaman from Liberian-Panamanian ship died in Greece after sailing in Indian, Pakistani and Japanese waters), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct. 15, 61 L.Ed.2d 897 (1979); Jennings v. Boeing Co., 660 F.Supp. 796, 803-804 & n. 9 (E.D.Pa.) (helicopter crash in Scottish waters), as modified on reh'g, 677 F.Supp. 803 (1987), aff'd, 838 F.2d 1206 (3d Cir.1988); Kuntz v. Windjammer "Barefoot" Cruises, Ltd., 573 F.Supp. 1277, 1280 (W.D.Pa.1983) (, )aff'd, 738 F.2d 423 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 858, 105 S.Ct. 188, 83 L.Ed.2d 121 (1984); First & Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Adams, 1979 A.M.C. 2860, 2863-64 (E.D.Va.1979) (, )aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 644 F.2d 878 (4th Cir.1981); Kunreuther v. Outboard Marine Corp., 757 F.Supp. 633, 634 (E.D.Pa.1991) ( ); Moyer v. Klosters Rederi, 645 F.Supp. 620, 623-24 (S.D.Fla.1986) ( ); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Bombay, 531 F.Supp. 1175, 1182-84 (W.D.Wash.1982) ( ); Cormier v. Williams/Sedco/Horn Constructors, 460 F.Supp. 1010, 1011-12 (E.D.La.1978) ( ); Mancuso v. Kimex, Inc., 484 F.Supp. 453, 454-55 (S.D.Fla.1980) ( ); Hamill v. Olympic Airways, S.A., 398 F.Supp. 829, 834 (D.D.C.1975) ( )(implicit in dictum).
Applying the above authorities to the facts of this case, we conclude that there is nothing inherently absurd with the notion of an American court applying American law to an action filed by an American plaintiff against an American defendant, particularly when the law in question was expressly designed to cover wrongful deaths occurring outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err by applying DOHSA as the exclusive remedy here. 1 See Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. at 232-33, 106 S.Ct. at 2499-2500.
After calculating the total amount of damages to be awarded the appellant for her loss of Howard's support and services, the district court reduced those figures by 30% to reflect that portion of the recovery which the court found should be attributed to Howard's personal consumption. The appellant asserts two challenges to the district court's calculations: First, she argues that it was error to apply the 30% figure to the household income (i.e., both her salary and Howard's wages as a grocery clerk) rather than to Howard's income...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kennedy v. Carnival Corp.
...wrongful death must occur both beyond a marine league (i.e. "on the high seas"). Further support can be found in Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc. , 41 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1994), where the Ninth Circuit held that DOHSA governed the wrongful death claim of an American who was injured while dise......
-
Rux v. Republic of Sudan
...includes foreign territorial waters and that the Port of Aden in Yemen falls within this scope. See, e.g., Howard v. Crystal Cruises, 41 F.3d 527, 529-30 (9th Cir.1994) (territorial waters of Mexico are "high seas" under DOHSA); Azzopardi v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 742 F.2d 890, 8......
-
Keller Found./Case Found. v. Tracy
...such a conclusion, nor are we aware of any other circuit doing so.8 To support this point, Tracy relies only on our decision in Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., in which we interpreted the scope of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301–08, as reaching to foreign territo......
-
In re Complaint of Moran Towing Corp.
...(including benefits) with a deduction for personal consumption and then reduced to present value. See, e.g., Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1994) (“After calculating the total amount of damages to be awarded the appellant for her loss of [decedent's] support and ......
-
Table of Cases
...LEXIS 54 (NPD-2019), §13:234 Howard v. Celte Corp., 2012 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 580 (NPD-2012), §18:82 Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F3d 527 (9th Cir 1994), §2:44 Howard v. DIR, (LA Superior Court Case No. BS171032), §19:142 Howe v. Liberty Mutual Inc. Co., 64 CCC 724 (W/D-1999), ......
-
Jurisdiction
...106 SCt 2485 (1986).] But it does apply to the coastal waters of a foreign state up to the watermark. [ Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F3d 527 (9th Cir 1994).] In Garofalo v. Princess Cruises, Inc. , 85 CA4th 1060 (2000), the employee’s injury was found to have caused 100% permanent di......
-
CHAPTER 12
...83 F.3d 271, 273 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F.3d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1994). “In reviewing decisions of the district court, we may affirm on any ground finding support in the record. If the decision below ......