Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. Estate of Tran
1990 A.M.C. 2617, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 2662, 777 S.W.2d 783 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a tort occurs on a dock within a state's territorial waters, state law applies unless the incident has a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. A dock is considered an extension of the land, and an injury occurring there does not automatically invoke exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction without the requisite maritime nexus.
Facts:
- The tanker vessel TEXACO CALIFORNIA, owned and operated by Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (TRMI) and Texaco Marine Services, Inc. (TMSI), was transiting the Sabine Pass.
- The vessel was traveling at speeds between 8.8 and 11.3 knots, which expert testimony characterized as excessive.
- The tanker's passage created a large wave or surge that traveled 120 to 130 feet inland.
- Dau Van Tran, son of Yi Thi Pham and Do Van Tran, was on or near a dock where the trawler MISS MARY was moored.
- Dau Van Tran was a volunteer helping the captain of the MISS MARY with an object near the propeller; he was not a paid employee or seaman.
- The large wave caused the MISS MARY to be pulled away from the dock and then slam back into it.
- Dau Van Tran was crushed to death between the returning trawler and the dock.
- Tran was alive and conscious for approximately 35 to 40 minutes after being crushed.
Procedural Posture:
- The case was originally filed by Yi Thi Pham and Do Van Tran against Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (TRMI) and Texaco Marine Services, Inc. (TMSI) in the United States District Court.
- TRMI and TMSI filed a third-party action against the owners of the trawler, MISS MARY.
- The federal case was non-suited and refiled in the 60th Judicial District Court of Texas.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, Pham and Tran, and entered judgment against TRMI and TMSI.
- The trial court awarded damages for wrongful death, survival damages for conscious pain and suffering, and damages for mental anguish.
- TRMI and TMSI filed post-judgment motions, which the trial court denied.
- TRMI and TMSI, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
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 federal maritime law exclusively govern a negligence claim for a death that occurred on a dock within state territorial waters, thereby preempting remedies available under state wrongful death and survival statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Brookshire, Justice.
No, federal maritime law does not exclusively govern this claim. A state court has jurisdiction to apply its own wrongful death and survival statutes to a tort that occurs on a dock within its territorial waters when the tort lacks a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. The court reasoned that for federal admiralty jurisdiction to apply to a tort, there must be both a maritime locality and a maritime nexus—a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities like navigation or commerce. Citing Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, the court found that while the incident occurred on navigable waters, it lacked the necessary maritime nexus. A dock is legally considered an extension of the land, and the injury occurred there. The 'saving to suitors' clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 preserves state common-law remedies, and Congressional acts like the Death on the High Seas Act were intended to leave state sovereignty over deaths in their territorial waters unimpaired. Therefore, the application of the Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the two-part 'locality plus nexus' test for admiralty tort jurisdiction established in Executive Jet Aviation. It clarifies that an injury on a structure appurtenant to land, like a dock, does not automatically trigger exclusive maritime law, even if caused by a vessel on navigable waters. The ruling is significant because it preserves the availability of state law remedies, which may be broader than those under general maritime law (e.g., recovery for mental anguish). This precedent solidifies the principle that state courts can hear cases involving maritime elements as long as the underlying tort lacks a substantial connection to traditional maritime commerce or navigation, thereby protecting state interests within their own territorial waters.
