WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT BY NON-DEPENDENT PARENTS OF DECEASED LONGSHOREMAN, WHICH SOUGHT DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF SOCIETY, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES WERE AVAILABLE ONLY TO DEPENDENT SURVIVING PARENTS; THE DECEDENT'S EMPLOYER WAS GRANTED SU
In Re: In the Matter of: AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, v. US MARITIME SERVICES, INC; ET AL, Defendants;
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14464
June 19, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Claimants, the parents of a deceased longshoreman employed by petitioner employer, filed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. � 1292(a)(3) from a judgment issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, dismissing their wrongful death claim seeking damages for loss of society and granting summary judgment to the employer in its limitation of liability proceedings under former 46 U.S.C.S. app. � 181 et seq.
OVERVIEW: The 24-year-old decedent died when he jumped from a barge on which he was employed into territorial waters in an attempt to save a coworker who had fallen from the barge. The decedent had been incarcerated for the five years immediately preceding his death and had not provided any financial support to his parents, either before or after his incarceration. At issue was whether non-dependent parents could recover for loss of society in maritime wrongful death actions in which a deceased longshoreman or harbor worker died in territorial waters. The district court held that they could not. On appeal, the court agreed. The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's Miles rule, which held that survivors of seamen who died in territorial waters or on the high seas could recover pecuniary damages but not nonpecuniary damages, such as for loss of society. The court drew no distinction between the Miles decedent, who was a seaman, and the instant decedent, who was a longshoreman. Restricting the recovery of nonpecuniary damages to dependents of a decedent served the policy goal of limiting the class of relatives and friends who could otherwise assert claims for the loss of love and affection.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court dismissed the parents' appeal of their survival claim because the issue was not presented to or decided by the district court.
