Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris

• Decision Date: 04 June 2001
• Docket Number: 00-346,4,98-2368
• Citation: 150 L.Ed.2d 34,532 U.S. 811,121 S.Ct. 1927
• Parties: NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. CELESTINE GARRIS, administratrix of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER GARRIS, DECEASEDSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

532 U.S. 811

121 S.Ct. 1927

150 L.Ed.2d 34

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION, PETITIONER v CELESTINE GARRIS, administratrix of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER GARRIS, DECEASED

No. 00-346

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Argued April 18, 2001

Decided June 4, 2001

Syllabus

In her complaint filed in the District Court, respondent alleged that her son died as a result of injuries sustained while performing sandblasting aboard a vessel berthed in the navigable waters of the United States. She further asserted that the injuries were caused by the negligence of petitioner and another, and prayed for damages under general maritime law. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim, stating that no cause of action exists, under general maritime law, for death resulting from negligence. The Fourth Circuit reversed, explaining that although this Court had not yet recognized a maritime cause of action for wrongful death resulting from negligence, the principles contained in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, made such an action appropriate.

Held: The general maritime cause of action recognized in Moragne-for death caused by violation of maritime duties, id., at 409-is available for the negligent breach of a maritime duty of care. Although Moragne's opinion did not limit its rule to any particular maritime duty, Moragne's facts were limited to the duty of seaworthiness, and so the issue of wrongful death for negligence has remained technically open. There is no rational basis, however, for distinguishing negligence from unseaworthiness. Negligence is no less a maritime duty than seaworthiness, and the choice-of-law and remedial anomalies provoked by withholding a wrongful death remedy are no less severe. Nor is a negligence action precluded by any of the three relevant federal statutes that provide remedies for injuries and death suffered in admiralty: the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Because of Congress's extensive involvement in legislating causes of action for maritime personal injuries, it will be the better course, in many cases that assert new claims beyond what those statutes have seen fit to allow, to leave further development to Congress. See, e.g., American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 455. The cause of action recognized today, however, is new only in the most technical sense. The general maritime law has recognized the tort of negligence for more than a century, and it has been clear since Moragne that breaches of a maritime duty are actionable when they cause death, as when they cause injury. Pp. 2-9.

210 F.3d 209, affirmed.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Parts I, II-A, and II-B-1 of which were unanimous, and Part II-B-2 of which was joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether the negligent breach of a general maritime duty of care is actionable when it causes death, as it is when it causes injury.

I

According to the complaint that respondent filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, her son, Christopher Garris, sustained injuries on April 8, 1997, that caused his death one day later. App. to Pet. for Cert. 53. The injuries were suffered while Garris was performing sandblasting work aboard the USNS Maj. Stephen W. Pless in the employ of Tidewater Temps, Inc., a subcontractor for Mid-Atlantic Coatings, Inc., which was in turn a subcontractor for petitioner Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation. And the injuries were caused, the complaint continued, by the negligence of petitioner and one of its other subcontractors, since dismissed from this case. Because the vessel was berthed in the navigable waters of the United States when Garris was injured, respondent invoked federal admiralty jurisdiction, U.S. Const., Art. III, 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S.C. 1333 and prayed for damages under general maritime law. She also asserted claims under the Virginia wrongful death statute, Va. Code Ann. 8.01-50 to 8.01-56 (2000).

The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim, for the categorical reason that "no cause of action exists, under general maritime law, for death of a nonseaman in state territorial waters resulting from negligence." No. Civ. A. 2:98CV382, 1998 WL 1108934, *1 (ED Va., Aug. 31, 1998) (unpublished). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that although this Court had not yet recognized a maritime cause of action for wrongful death resulting from negligence, the principles contained in our decision in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970), made such an action appropriate. 210 F.3d 209, 211 (2000). Judge Hall concurred in the judgment because, in her view, Moragne had itself recognized the action. Id., at 222-227. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's suggestion for rehearing en banc, with two judges dissenting. 215 F.3d 420 (2000). We granted certiorari. 531 U.S. 1050 (2000).

II

Three of four issues of general maritime law are settled, and the fourth is before us. It is settled that the general maritime law imposes duties to avoid unseaworthiness and negligence, see, e.g., Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 549-550 (1960) (unseaworthiness); Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626, 630 (1882) (negligence), that nonfatal injuries caused by the breach of either duty are compensable, see, e.g., Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 102-103 (1944) (unseaworthiness); Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U.S. 449, 457 (1925) (negligence), and that death caused by breach of the duty of seaworthiness is also compensable, Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., supra, at 409. Before us is the question whether death caused by negligence should, or must under direction of a federal statute, be treated differently.

A

For more than 80 years, from 1886 until 1970, all four issues were considered resolved, though the third not in the manner we have just described. The governing rule then was the rule of The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 213 (1886): Although the general maritime law provides relief for injuries caused by the breach of maritime duties, it does not provide relief for wrongful death. The Harrisburg said that rule was compelled by existence of the same rule at common law, id., at 213-214-although it acknowledged, id., at 205-212, that admiralty courts had held that damages for wrongful death were recoverable under maritime law, see also Moragne, supra, at 387-388 (listing cases).

In 1969, however, we granted certiorari in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., supra, for the express purpose of considering "whether The Harrisburg ... should any longer be regarded as acceptable law." 398 U.S., at 375-376. We inquired whether the rule of The Harrisburg was defensible under either the general maritime law or the policy displayed in the maritime statutes Congress had since enacted, 398 U.S., at 379-393, whether those statutes pre-empted judicial action overruling The Harrisburg, 398 U.S., at 393-403, whether stare decisis required adherence to The Harrisburg, 398 U.S., at 403-405, and whether insuperable practical difficulties would accompany The Harrisburg's overruling, 398 U.S., at 405-408. Answering every question no, we overruled the case and declared a new rule of maritime law: "We ... hold that an action does lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties." Id., at 409.

As we have noted in an earlier opinion, the wrongful-death rule of Moragne was not limited to any particular maritime duty, Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S. A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 214, n. 11 (1996) (dictum), but Moragne's facts were limited to the duty of seaworthiness, and so the issue of wrongful death for negligence has remained technically open. We are able to find no rational basis, however, for distinguishing negligence from seaworthiness. It is no less a distinctively maritime duty than seaworthiness: The common-law duties of care have not been adopted and retained unmodified by admiralty, but have been adjusted to fit their maritime context, see, e.g., Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 630-632 (1959), and a century ago the maritime law exchanged the common law's rule of contributory negligence for one of comparative negligence, see, e.g., The Max Morris, 137 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1890); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 408-409 (1953). Consequently the "tensions and discrepancies" in our precedent arising "from the necessity to accommodate state remedial statutes to exclusively maritime substantive concepts"-which ultimately drove this Court in Moragne to abandon The Harrisburg, see 398 U.S., at 401-were no less pronounced with maritime negligence than with unseaworthiness. In fact, both cases cited by Moragne to exemplify those discrepancies involved maritime negligence, see id., at 401 (citing Hess v. United States, 361 U.S. 314 (1960); Goett v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 U.S. 340 (1960) (per curiam)); see also Nelson v. United States, 639 F.2d 469, 473 (CA9 1980) (opinion by then-Judge Kennedy) (concluding that uniformity concerns required Moragne's application to negligence). It is true, as petitioner observes, that we have...