Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris
150 L. Ed. 2d 34, 532 U.S. 811, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4125 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
General maritime law provides a cause of action for wrongful death caused by the negligent breach of a maritime duty of care in state territorial waters. This extends the wrongful-death remedy previously recognized for unseaworthiness in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
Facts:
- Christopher Garris was a nonseaman maritime worker employed by Tidewater Temps, Inc., a subcontractor.
- Garris was performing sandblasting work aboard the USNS Maj. Stephen W. Pless, a vessel berthed in the navigable territorial waters of Virginia.
- On April 8, 1997, Garris sustained severe injuries while working on the vessel.
- The injuries were allegedly caused by the negligence of Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, another contractor working on the vessel.
- Garris died from his injuries on April 9, 1997, one day after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Garris's mother filed a lawsuit against Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims under general maritime law.
- The District Court, a trial court, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim, ruling that general maritime law does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful death from negligence in state territorial waters.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case, holding that the principles from Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. made such a claim appropriate.
- Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does general maritime law provide a cause of action for the death of a nonseaman in state territorial waters resulting from negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes, general maritime law provides a cause of action for death resulting from negligence in state territorial waters. There is no rational basis for distinguishing negligence from unseaworthiness, for which a wrongful-death action was recognized in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. The same principles of justice and uniformity that drove the Moragne decision—namely, that a remedy should not be denied simply because an injury was serious enough to cause death—apply equally to negligence. Examination of relevant federal statutes, including the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), reveals that Congress has not preempted this cause of action. The Jones Act applies only to seamen, DOHSA does not apply in territorial waters, and the LHWCA expressly preserves claims against third parties like the petitioner. Therefore, recognizing this cause of action is logically compelled by existing precedent.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
I agree that the maritime cause of action established in Moragne for unseaworthiness is equally available for negligence. However, I do not join the part of the Court's opinion that suggests courts should generally defer to Congress for future development in maritime personal injury law. The precedent set by Moragne supports the idea that developing admiralty law is a shared venture between the judiciary and Congress, where federal common lawmaking continues to harmonize with congressional enactments, rather than standing still.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands the wrongful-death remedy created in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. By extending the Moragne cause of action from unseaworthiness to negligence, the Court confirms that a general maritime wrongful-death claim exists for any breach of a maritime duty. This promotes uniformity in maritime law, ensuring that recovery for a fatal incident does not depend on whether the claim is framed as negligence or unseaworthiness, or on the vagaries of individual state laws. It clarifies that federal statutes like the LHWCA preserve, rather than preclude, such federal common law maritime claims against third parties.
