498 U.S. 19, 111 S. Ct. 317, 112 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1990)
Ludwick Torregano served as a seaman aboard the vessel M/V Archon.1 On the evening of July 18, 1984, while the ship was docked in the harbor of Vancouver, Washington, fellow crew member Clifford Melrose stabbed Torregano repeatedly, resulting in his death.2
Mercedel Miles, Torregano’s mother and the administratrix of his estate, filed suit against Apex Marine Corporation, Westchester Marine Shipping Company, Archon Marine Company, and Aeron Marine Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.3 Miles asserted a negligence claim under the Jones Act for failure to prevent the assault and a claim for breach of the warranty of seaworthiness under general maritime law based on hiring an unfit crew member.4 She sought damages for loss of support and services, loss of society, punitive damages, the estate’s recovery for Torregano’s pain and suffering, and compensation for his lost future income.5
At trial the District Court struck the punitive damages claim, ruled that the estate could not recover lost future income, and instructed the jury that Miles could recover for loss of society only if she was financially dependent on her son.6 The jury determined that Apex was negligent, that Torregano was 7 percent contributorily negligent, and that the vessel was seaworthy, awarding Miles $7,254 for loss of support and services after reduction and the estate $130,200 for pain and suffering while denying loss of society damages because Miles was not financially dependent.7
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case after addressing the scope of damages under general maritime law.8 The Supreme Court granted Miles’ petition for certiorari on the two damages questions.9
Whether general maritime law recognizes a cause of action for the wrongful death of a seaman?10
General maritime law recognizes a wrongful death action for seamen based on unseaworthiness, extending the holding of Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. to true seamen because the Jones Act does not preclude such recovery and uniformity requires the action.11
Yes. The facts establish that Torregano was a true seaman killed due to unseaworthiness.12 The Court applied Moragne to recognize the general maritime wrongful death claim because the anomalies motivating that decision included the inability of seamen to recover for unseaworthiness deaths in territorial waters.13 This extension furthers the policy of uniformity in admiralty law without conflicting with the Jones Act, which addresses only negligence and does not preempt general maritime unseaworthiness claims for death.14
General maritime law recognizes a cause of action for the wrongful death of a seaman.15
Whether the parent of a seaman who died from injuries incurred aboard respondents’ vessel may recover under general maritime law for loss of society?16
In a general maritime wrongful death action involving a Jones Act seaman, recovery is limited to pecuniary losses because the Jones Act incorporates the FELA pecuniary damages limitation, and courts may not expand remedies beyond those Congress provided in the statutory scheme.17
No. Miles sought loss of society damages in addition to loss of support and services.18 The jury found no financial dependence, and the court of appeals upheld the denial under general maritime law.19 The court reasoned that the Jones Act limits wrongful death recovery to pecuniary loss.20 Allowing nonpecuniary loss of society damages in a general maritime unseaworthiness action would create an inconsistency with the negligence remedy under the Jones Act.21
This limitation restores uniformity across DOHSA, the Jones Act, and general maritime law for all seamen deaths, preventing judicial expansion of remedies in an area where Congress has spoken directly.22
The parent of a seaman may not recover under general maritime law for loss of society.23
Whether a claim for the seaman’s lost future earnings survives his death?24
A general maritime survival action does not permit recovery of a seaman’s lost future earnings.25 The Jones Act incorporates the FELA survival provision limiting recovery to losses suffered during the decedent’s lifetime.26 The majority of legislatures have rejected such recovery in survival actions.27
No. The District Court ruled the estate could not recover lost future income, and the court of appeals affirmed that position for the general maritime survival claim.28 The court determined that recovery of lost future earnings would often duplicate loss of support damages in a wrongful death action.29 The considered judgment of Congress and most states is against allowing such recovery in survival actions.30 Although policy arguments exist for efficient deterrence, the court declined to adopt a minority rule in an area occupied by statute, holding that the Jones Act/FELA limits control and foreclose more expansive general maritime remedies.31
A claim for the seaman’s lost future earnings does not survive his death under general maritime law.32