This case arises from a collision on October 14, 1969 between the M/V Elaine Jones, a towboat owned and oper
Canal filed a petition seeking exoneration or limitation of liability. In response, Mary Kathryn Griffith, as personal representative of the decedent,
The District Court found that Canal was negligent through its employees, that the Elaine Jones was unseaworthy, that Canal’s negligence proximately caused the collision and the unseaworthiness proximately contributed thereto, and that Griffith was not negligent. Accordingly, the court held Canal liable for damages to all claimants. Canal appeals, claiming error with respect to liability and damages, both as to Terminal and to Mrs. Griffith. Mrs. Griffith cross appeals with regard to the amount of damages awarded and elements of damage allegedly omitted. We affirm with respect to Canal’s liability to Terminal and to Mrs. Griffith, and with respect to the damages due Terminal. We reverse with respect to damages due Mrs. Griffith and with respect to her husband’s contributory negligence.
We focus on four areas of inquiry: (I) liability as between Canal and Terminal; (II) liability as between Canal and Mrs. Griffith; (III) damages due Terminal; (IV) damages due Mrs. Griffith on behalf of George Griffith’s beneficiaries designated by pertinent statutory and general maritime law.
We set out the facts needed to understand our disposition.
The Elaine Jones, a 5300 horsepower diesel towboat, was manned by Captain Stroschein, pilot Griffith, and eight support personnel. Stroschein boarded the Elaine Jones as pilot on Sept. 29, 1969. His previous experience included piloting similar towboats of 4300 horsepower, but his regular employment was as master of an 1800 horsepower vessel. When Griffith came aboard on Oct. 7, Stroschein became master and Griffith pilot. The two had never served together before. Griffith regularly piloted a sister vessel of the Elaine Jones, identical in dimension but having 1000 less horsepower.
The Elaine Jones passed northbound through St. Louis Harbor on Oct. 9 when the Mississippi River gauge was 4.7 feet, well below flood stage of 30 feet. It operated north of St. Louis for several days, then proceeded back downriver with seven empty barges. At Wood River, Illinois, just north of St. Louis, while Captain Stroschein was on watch, one empty and two loaded barges were added to the tow and the entire ten-barge tow rearranged. With Captain Stroschein still at the controls, the Elaine Jones departed Wood River heading south pushing the tow. Shortly before noon when Griffith was due to relieve Stroschein at the wheel, the Elaine Jones arrived at Lock 27, located at Mile 185, five miles north of Eads Bridge. Griffith took over from Stroschein at 11:45 a. m. and left Lock 27 five minutes later.
The physical facts concerning St. Louis Harbor, and the effects of high water are well described by the District Court.
3. St. Louis Harbor, the site of this accident, because of the presence of six river bridges, their close proximity and construction, coupled with the meander of the river and its currents, enjoys a reputation among river people of being a difficult area or passage to safely navigate, particularly in high water. A vessel southbound, as was the Elaine Jones, after departing Lock 27, is first confronted with the Merchants Bridge (Mile 183), and then the McKinley Bridge (Mile 182.-5), which present limited horizontal clearance. Immediately after passing the McKinley Bridge, the vessel must line up for safe passage of the Veterans Bridge (Mile 180.2) and then the Eads Bridge (Mile 180). Just downriver from the Eads Bridge are the Poplar Street Bridge (Mile 179.3) and the MacArthur Bridge, also known as the “City” bridge (Mile 179). For southbound traffic, a gradual bend in the river from left to right occurs above the Veterans Bridge and extends to below the MacArthur Bridge. Contributing to the navigation problem is the presence of Eads Bridge which, due to its arched construction, affords a limited amount of clearance in high water through which vessels can safely pass. Also, during high water, i. e., 20 feet or more on the St. Louis gauge, the current immediately above Veterans Bridge runs from the right descending bank to the left descending bank, from the Missouri shore toward the Illinois shore. This high water current condition, called a left-hand “set” or “draft”, has a pronounced effect of moving a southbound boat and tow toward the Illinois bank rather than straight ahead. These navigation conditions exist whenever the river is at 20 feet or more on the St. Louis gauge and are facts known to experienced mariners navigating towboats through that section of the Mississippi River.
•>:• •>:- -x- -x- -x- -x-
5. * * * As the river stage exceeds 20 feet, the force of the aforementioned set to the left above Veterans Bridge likewise increases; and also as the rate of rise in the river accelerates, the force of the set becomes more violent. Although a sudden rise of the river increases the severity of the set, this is an operating factor known to persons experienced in navigating St. Louis Harbor during high water. Moreover, the experienced navigator of a downbound vessel can reasonably predict the severity of current in St. Louis Harbor by observing upriver conditions at Wood River, Illinois, and water levels at Lock 27.
6. The above left set or cross-current is not encountered by downbound vessels except in high water. At all other times the current in the immediate area runs straight down the river. When navigating the harbor down-bound in low water (10 feet or less), it is an acceptable practice for a vessel to approach the Veterans and Eads Bridges in line with their green lights and pass under both along the mid-channel sailing line, as depicted on the U.S. Engineers’ official chart (Ex. 13). See App. A. This sailing line is the normal low water configuration for passage of a descending vessel. When navigating the harbor down-bound in high water, it is the commonly accepted practice, in order to compensate for the left hand set encountered just above Veterans Bridge, to approach Veterans Bridge well to the right of the mid-channel sailing line, or favoring the Missouri shore. By this means, the vessel and tow are not forced by the cross-current to the
Before the towboat’s departure from Lock 27, Stroschein spoke briefly to Griffith without issuing any instructions for navigating St. Louis Harbor, and then left the wheelhouse for the galley. Stroschein returned at 12:10 p. m., at which time the head of the tow was more than a mile above Veterans Bridge, or approximately half way between McKinley Bridge, mile 182.5, and Veterans Bridge, mile 180.2. Stroschein noted without comment that Griffith had set the Elaine Jones on the mid-channel sailing line, the course to be followed under normal river conditions. At that time the vessel had not yet reached the fail-safe point, that is, the point in the river beyond which correcting the course to a heading proper under the extraordinary conditions would be too late to avoid almost certain mishap. Still the captain said nothing about the river conditions or the course to be followed nor did he assume command. Pilot Griffith continued on the mid-channel sailing line past the fail-safe point and until the head of the tow reached about one-quarter mile north of Veterans Bridge. At this juncture the left hand set in the river was encountered, pushing the vessel and tow violently to the left and toward the left descending channel and the left pier of Veterans Bridge. The pilot took measures to attain a proper heading, but his efforts were to no avail. It was only when the towboat was about 100 feet above Veterans Bridge (at which time most of the tow would have passed under that bridge) that Captain Stroschein first became alarmed.
The Elaine Jones bumped the river pier of Veterans Bridge, causing some of the tow wires to part and the tow to jack-knife. Stroschein abandoned the wheelhouse when he realized a collision with Eads Bridge was unavoidable, but Griffith remained to maneuver the vessel off the Eads Bridge pier toward which it was headed. The towboat missed the pier, but seconds later the wheelhouse struck the bottom portion of Eads Bridge. Griffith left the controls immediately prior to impact but was crushed by falling metal and killed instantly. Everyone else escaped.
I. Liability as between Canal and Terminal.
The District Court correctly held that, in the absence of sufficient proof in rebuttal, presumption of fault attaches to a moving vessel which collides with a fixed object and makes a prima facie case of fault against the vessel. The Oregon,
Canal attempted to meet its burden in part by showing that Eads Bridge was constructed in such manner as to violate the Act of Congress authorizing its erection,
The District Court correctly held the defense of inevitable accident to be inapplicable.
II. Liability as between Canal and Mrs. Griffith.
Canal was found liable to Mrs. Griffith as personal representative on the basis of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and the general maritime law, Moragne v. States Marine Lines,
The findings of negligence on the part of Canal may be quickly dealt with. We review them under the “clearly erroneous” rule, McAllister v. United States,
Stroschein, the towboat captain, was found wanting in due care in the following particulars: (a) tendering to his pilot a tow without affording him an opportunity to get the feel of the tow before encountering unusual river conditions which the master knew were hazardous to navigate; (b) failing to inform his pilot of a hazard to navigation of which he had knowledge; (c) failing to instruct his pilot as to the proper method of navigating St. Louis Harbor under known hazardous conditions; (d) failing to take charge when the pilot plainly misgoverned the vessel; (e) abandoning the wheelhouse in the face of danger.
Finding (b) is so obviously correct as to require no comment.
As to (a), on the basis of clear and competent expert testimony, the District Judge found that it takes “some minutes” after the vessel reaches full speed for an experienced pilot to get the feel of a particular tow arrangement. The arrangement had been made up while Captain Stroschein was on watch, and Griffith, handling the tow for the first time, had been piloting for only a few minutes when he came into the difficult passage of St. Louis Harbor. These findings dispose of the contention of Canal that the pilot had the feel of his tow from his prior experience.
Regarding (c), the court found that Stroschein was aware of the hazardous conditions in the harbor, having himself previously piloted vessels safely through the area at high water. Also the court heard testimony that every pilot was familiar with the dangerous condition caused by high water.
There can be no real dispute over conclusion (d), and Canal has not contended otherwise, that the captain was negligent in failing to take charge when the pilot plainly misgoverned the vessel.
Canal questions conclusion (e), Stroschein’s negligence in abandoning the wheelhouse, by the unpersuasive argument that since Griffith was not negligent in fleeing seconds after Stroschein, the captain’s earlier departure could not have been an act lacking the requisite care. In the interval between the captain’s and the pilot’s departures, Griffith, by remaining, managed to maneuver the vessel sufficiently to avoid a potentially more serious collision with the pier of the bridge. The court was justified in inferring that the captain’s presence might have aided in minimizing the disaster.
The trial court also found Canal negligent because its port captain failed to warn the master and pilot of the navigational hazards of St. Louis Harbor although he had “privity or knowledge” of such hazards. The port captain is located at Canal’s shore facility at Natchez, Mississippi, which had twice daily radio
The Elaine Jones was found to be unseaworthy in these respects: “(a) Her master and pilot were unfit to meet the perils reasonably to be anticipated in her voyage through St. Louis Harbor. . (b) Her master and pilot were unequal in disposition and seamanship to the ordinary man in the calling under like circumstances. . . .” which unseaworthy condition proximately contributed to the accident.
The findings concerning unseaworthiness, insofar as they relate to Griffith, lead us into discussion of the point most strenuously urged by Canal, which is that Griffith negligently chose his course through St. Louis Harbor, which negligence caused or contributed to the accident, and that findings to that effect are required by the finding that unseaworthiness was predicated in part on Griffith’s insufficiency as a pilot. It is perhaps an overstatement that a finding of unseaworthiness requires in all cases a finding of contributory negligence.
This necessary conclusion of negligence on Griffith’s part is significant in at least two respects. Canal claims that negligence by Griffith is a basis for recovery over by it, in whole or in part, against Griffith for damages due Terminal from Canal. Additionally, while not a complete defense to the Griffith claim insofar as it is based on unseaworthiness, the finding of contributory negligence is a proper factor to be considered in fixing the amount of recovery. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn,
We turn then to consideration of whether as a matter of law Griffith was chargeable with knowledge, that is, whether he is required to suffer the legal consequences of knowledge although he did not actually possess it. These facts found by the court bear on that determination : “experienced mariners navigating towboats through that section of the Mississippi River” knew that the set occurred when the river gauge was above 20 feet, but Griffith did not know of the set; Griffith had seven years experience in piloting vessels of other towing companies on various rivers, including the Mississippi; Griffith had piloted through St. Louis Harbor southbound at least four times; Griffith had .never piloted a vessel through this area at high water, but Stroschein had; a sudden rise in the water increases the severity of the set, a fact known “to persons experienced in navigating St. Louis Harbor during high water.” The court entered this conclusion of law:
There being no evidence that the deceased pilot was aware of the set or cross-current at flood stage or in high water just above Veterans Bridge, based on his prior experience or knowledge, Griffith may not be presumed to have been personally negligent. Thus, he cannot be held contributorily negligent for the improper navigation and no diminution of damages on account of comparative negligence may be made in the death award.
“[T]hose who undertake any work calling for special skill . . . are required not only to exercise reasonable care in what they do, but also to possess a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability.” Prosser, Law of Torts § 32, at 164. In Atlee v. The Nw. Union Packet Co.,88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 389 ,22 L.Ed. 619 (1875), a barge collided with a stone pier built into a river, and suit was brought in admiralty by the barge owner for recovery. The District Court found mutual fault on the part of the pier owner and the barge’s pilot, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding no fault on the part of the pilot. The' Supreme Court reversed and held that the pilot was at fault. It observed: “[T]he pilot of a river steamer . . .is selected for his personal knowledge of the topography through which he steers his vessel. ... He must know where the navigable channel is .... He must'also be familiar with all dangers that are permanently located in the course of the river.
To do this he must be con*21 stantly informed of changes in the current of the river, of sand-bars newly made, of logs or snags, or other objects newly presented against which his vessel might be injured.” Id. at 396,22 L.Ed. at 621 . The Court acknowledged that it was exacting a very high order of ability. The pilot had been absent for a year and thus did not know what “[a]ny pilot who, during the navigable season of the year 1870, was engaged in conveying vessels up and down the Mississippi River past Fort Madison, would have known . . . . ” Id. at 397,22 L.Ed. at 622 . The Court noted that after so long an absence the pilot should make a few trips with other pilots more familiar with the river. It concluded that “there was such want of knowledge and skill in the pilot, and such want of care in his management of his vessel at that point” as to lead to the conclusion that the pilot was at fault. Id. at 398,22 L.Ed. at 622 . In summary, a pilot was held to have a duty to perform his functions with the skill and knowledge of an ordinary Mississippi River pilot recently familiar with the area. In failing to inform himself of the changes an ordinary pilot would expect, and in acting without such knowledge, the pilot did not fulfill his duty.
Davidson S.S. Co. v. United States,
In The Severance,
We must presume here that Captain Dosher either knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the prevailing conditions on the Cape Fear River. By undertaking to act as pilot of the “Severance,” he promised the skill of his art.
Id. at 920.
Utility Service Corp. v. Hillman Trans. Co.,
Appellant’s pilot should have been aware of the crosscurrent, for the law imposes a duty upon him to be “constantly informed of changes in the current of the river” and the “changes made by the hand of man or the action of the elements in the path of his vessel.” Davidson Steamship Co. v. United States, 1907,205 U.S. 187 , 194,27 S.Ct. 480 , 483,51 L.Ed. 764 . Rivers are not immutable. Rains swell their volume; the opening of dams increase their current; deposits of silt may change their depths; wrecks may obstruct them. Where the river pilot has the meaná of obtaining information concerning these changes, he is deemed in law to know them. If he tests the danger of increased current at a place where his common sense and nature’s physical laws would tell him that a crosscurrent would embarrass his progress, he does so at his own risk.
Id. at 124.
The foregoing authorities, applied to the findings of fact made in the present ease, require the conclusion that the pilot was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. He knew of the high water level. The court found that the particular current conditions existing at St. Louis Harbor under circumstances of high water were known to experienced pilots and that Griffith was an experienced pilot. As such, he was required to inform himself of special current conditions arising from circumstances known to him. Atlee v. The Nw. Union Packet Co., supra. Thus, while specifically charging the master with knowledge of all navigational conditions reasonably ascertainable by mariners experienced in navigating St. Louis Harbor at flood stage, the court absolved Griffith of negligence because it considered him not chargeable with the same body of knowledge because he was not experienced in navigating the harbor at flood stage. The foregoing authorities make clear that this was an incorrect conclusion.
Appellee Griffith characterizes the statement of a pilot’s duty as a presumption (supported in this to some degree by the District Court’s Conclusion of Law, supra) which can be relied upon only where the employer’s liability to a third party is in issue, and not between employer and employee. But the facts in Hillman make clear that knowledge is not merely a fact presumed and rebuttable by evidence that the fact was not known. Secondly, it seems to us to make no difference that the failure of duty is asserted by employer against employee. Where the seaman fails to perform his own legal obligation concurrently with other failures of the employer, and as a consequence of the concurrent failures an accident occurs causing injury or death to the seaman, the seaman’s failure can be reflected as an offset to his recovery. This is plain vanilla comparative negligence, a result not proscribed by the special status of seamen as wards of admiralty. The particular respect in which the pilot is negligent has no bearing on the determination of who should bear the loss as between negligent pilot and employer. The crucial factor is not that the pilot failed to discover a fact he should have known, as opposed, for example, to his having known all he should but oversteering; it is that the pilot in some manner did not meet his legal duty. Cf. Symonette Shipyards, Ltd. v. Clark,
Canal Barge claims that if Griffith was negligent it is entitled to at least some degree of indemnification from Griffith for damages due to Terminal. Canal appears to be proceeding on a tort indemnity theory rather than an actual or implied contract. Griffith contends as a general proposition that in a collision case in admiralty the employer-shipowner cannot seek indemnity from its employee-pilot for damages caused to a third party and resulting from the pilot’s negligence. No admiralty eases are cited to us in which indemnity was either permitted or forbidden in such circumstances. But see Tri-State Oil Tool Indus. Co. v. Delta Marine Drilling Co.,
III. Damages due to Terminal.
Canal has mounted a broad assault on the damages awarded to Terminal. The damages fall into these categories: (1) loss of toll revenue attributable to automobile traffic across Eads Bridge; (2) loss of revenue from passenger train traffic; (3) additional costs incurred in routing and manning over the city’s toll bridge trains normally carried by Eads ; (4) Eads repair costs. With respect to the first three categories Canal’s objections narrow down with few exceptions to the single assertion that the lower court’s findings are clearly erroneous.
(1) Auto tolls. Terminal set out to prove loss of auto tolls by introduction of business records indicating vehicle revenues earned by Eads during comparable periods before and after the accident. See South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. United States,
(2) Passenger train revenue. While Eads underwent repairs, passenger trains that normally used it to cross the Mississippi into St. Louis Union Station were shuttled by Terminal over the city’s Municipal Bridge. The toll there incurred by Terminal was nearly twice the rate Terminal charged passenger lines for use of its own bridge. Terminal was entitled to the Eads tolls it lost. Canal, however, contends that Terminal was not the real party in interest to press such a claim because it had passed on to the passenger lines the full city tolls. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). In connection with this real party in interest objection, Canal maintains that the District Court violated the parol evidence rule.
Evidence heard over Canal’s objection revealed that unless the railroads themselves made Terminal’s usage of Municipal Bridge necessary, Terminal billed, and the railroads expected to pay, the lower Eads toll whether a train crossed Eads or Municipal Bridge. This billing practice was said to be based on a course of dealing between Terminal and the railroads. The practice notwithstanding, Terminal passed on the full Municipal toll to its customers, because it was short of cash while Eads was out of service. The railroads paid under protest and with the expectation that they would be reimbursed the difference between the Eads toll ordinarily paid and the Municipal toll required of them. The evidence of course of dealing did not violate the parol evidence rule. Professor Corbin has stated the substance of the rule, which is one of substantive law and not at all of evidence, as follows:
When two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.
3 Corbin, Contracts § 573, at 357 (1960). This definition suggests two inquiries, the answers to which lead us to our conclusion that no infringement of the rule occurred: Did the parties assent to a writing as the complete and accurate integration of a contract between them? Regardless of the answer to the first question, is the evidence offered of antecedent understandings or is it of subsequent agreements? For, as Cor-bin epigrammatically states, “Today may control the effect of what happened yes
Canal asserts that the court erred by permitting Terminal’s witnesses to testify about a subsequent course of dealing in an attempt to alter, vary and change the unambiguous terms of the basic operating agreement between Terminal and its customer railroads entered into in writing on October 1, 1889. “Extrinsic evidence may be . helpful in deciding whether there has been an integration, and no rule bars ‘parol 'evidence’ or any other relevant evidence for the purpose of determining whether the parties have agreed upon the writing as a complete and accurate statement of what is agreed upon between them. Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.,
Due consideration for the evidence of course of dealing compels our conclusion that Terminal was the real party in interest with respect to claims for passenger train tolls. Rule 17(a)’s requirement that “[e]very action ... be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest” directs attention to whether the plaintiff has a significant interest in the particular action he has instituted. See 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1542, at 639 (1971). Its effect “is that the action must be brought by the person who, according to the governing substantive law, is entitled to enforce the right.” Id. § 1543, at 643; see Gagliano ex rel. Gagliano v. Bernsen,
*26 [T]he modern function of the rule in its negative aspect is simply to protect the defendant against a subsequent action by the party actually entitled to recover, and to ensure generally that the judgment will have its proper effect as res judicata.
In the testimony concerning prior course of dealing and the explanation of the deviation therefrom, no suggestion emerged that there had been any change in relationship between Terminal and the railroads that would relieve Terminal of ultimate responsibility for the difference between its own and Municipal tolls. On the contrary, Terminal’s comptroller testified, in line with the evidence of the past course of dealing, that his company had received protests and demands for repayment from several of the railroads. The evidence indicates a continuing legal obligation of Terminal to reimburse the railroads the difference between the tolls. Thus, Terminal was the party entitled to enforce the right to recovery.
(3) Rerouting expense. Since 1968 Terminal' has maintained daily records of its usage of Eads Bridge and Merchants Bridge, both of which it owned, and Municipal Bridge, owned by the city of St. Louis and to which Terminal paid tolls. During the eight months that Eads was out of service, Terminal continued to maintain these records, indicating with an “Eads” notation each freight train which crossed the Mississippi via Municipal but which would have moved via Eads had that facility been available. Summaries of the records for this eight month period and for two comparable pre-accident periods were put in evidence to prove the increased usage of Municipal due to the unavailability of Eads. The District Court awarded losses attributable to freight operations on the record of the post-accident period, the period which produced the smallest award. Finding no fault with the method utilized to compute damages, Canal submits that the records underlying the summaries were inaccurate and thus the award was based on speculation. Bearing in mind what we have stated above regarding the degree of certainty required to prove damages, Canal’s objection is not well taken.
Canal attempted to discredit the accuracy of the records by demonstrating that trains in fact moving across Municipal but designated “Eads” on the post-accident records could not have utilized Eads in any event because the locomotives powering them were too large for that bridge. Terminal employees explained to the apparent satisfaction of the trial judge that trains were classified in the freight yards according to the bridge to be used, prior to assignment of a locomotive. Since Eads was shut down, it was unnecessary to assign engines small enough to move via Eads; thus, the fact that a train crossed Municipal under power of a locomotive too large for Eads did not necessarily establish that it was not an “Eads”-designated train.
Canal elicited testimony that even while Eads was open, Terminal’s general manager had complained that the company was routing too much traffic over Municipal and had directed that every effort be made to reduce Terminal’s usage of that bridge. The general manager explained, however, that the increased use of Municipal did not draw traffic away from Eads but from Mer
(4) Repair costs. The award of damages included the cost of repairs to Eads Bridge, without any reduction for depreciation. Findings were made that at the time of the collision the bridge was in sound condition, that it had a remaining useful life of an indefinite number of years, and that it had been fully depreciated in accordance with governing rates. Canal urges that the law requires a reduction of damages to account for depreciation and that the court erred in not trimming recoverable costs accordingly. See, e. g., Patterson Terminals, Inc. v. S.S. Johannes Frans,
A party suffering injury to his property is entitled to no more than restoration to its condition prior to the wrong. See, e. g., The Baltimore,
In support of its position Canal has cited to us Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. International Terminal Operating Co.,
Canal contends that the District Court erred by including in the computation of loss of future earnings a 2% per year cost of living increase, by failing to discount future earnings by taxes to be paid, and by setting the discount rate at 4% instead of a higher figure.
In Cunningham v. Bay Drilling Co.,
No deduction for income taxes should be made where annual estimated earnings are not clearly above the reach of the middle income scale. Blue v. Western Ry.,
As for the application of a 4% discount rate on future earnings, there was evidence that it would be possible to invest at a higher rate. But also there was evidence that Mrs. Griffith was not a sophisticated investor, and that, given the size of the fund and the need to invade principal periodically, fixed payment annuities (offered by established companies at maximum effective rates of interest of 4%%) would be her best investment. Under Blue v. Western Ry., supra, the applicable discount factor is a reasonable interest rate “over the period of the remaining anticipated work-life of the plaintiff,”
We reject the claim of Mrs. Griffith as cross appellant that the District Court should have decreased the lost earnings awarded as damages by a factor of 15% instead of 25% because the lesser figure more closely represented the deceased’s personal consumption of his earnings. We have reviewed Mrs. Griffith’s testimony that her husband’s personal upkeep accounted for approximately $150 per month, or approximately 15% of his earnings, against her other testimony detailing the family’s expenses by categories. The District Court’s finding that his needs accounted for $250 per month, or 25%, is not clearly erroneous.
We turn to the second and far more substantial contention raised on cross appeal. The action maintained for the decedent’s survivors derives partially from Moragne v. States Marine Lines,
Moragne fashioned only the skeletal outline of a federal cause of action for death in state territorial waters caused by breach of general maritime duties. Resolution of ancillary questions, such as the applicable statute of limitations, the beneficiary scheme, and the measure of damages, was left to “await further sifting through the lower courts in future litigation.”
Moragne, then, makes clear that both state and federal law are appropriate guides for those lower courts who must fill in the interstices of the general maritime death remedy. In post-Moragne cases this circuit has carefully followed the approach suggested by Moragne. For example, in Gaudet v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc.,
[W]e have neither the intention nor the need to weave out of whole cloth a new suit in which to clothe this previously unrecognized cause of action; we have but to piece together the materials that are already available, e. g., the general maritime law, personal-injury cases, state wrongful death statutes, and the Death on the High Seas Act, by a pattern that complements the purposes designed by the Supreme Court in Moragne.
Id. at 1332. Dennis v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp.,
The policies manifested in those federal laws mentioned by Moragne point toward nonrecoverability of survivor’s grief damages. First, under general maritime law, our primary referent, grief damages are not recoverable. Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques,
The state guideposts to which Moragne refers are not so easily categorized. In In re Sincere Navigation Corp.,
The most persuasive state analogies should logically come from those preMoragne cases in which state death acts were borrowed to provide a maritime remedy for death caused by unseaworthiness.
We conclude that the current rationales underlying recoverability for survi
While not crucial to our decision, we note that other circuits that have considered the issue have uniformly denied grief damages in a general maritime action. See Greene v. Vantage S.S. Corp.,
V. Conclusion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges and BOYLE, District Judge.
The Petition for Rehearing filed on behalf of Mary K.' Griffith, etc. is Denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is Denied.
The petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Canal Barge Company is Denied in all respects except with regard to the issue of whether the District Court erred by including in the computation of loss of future earnings a 2% per year cost of living increase. Action on that issue is withheld pending consideration by the court en banc of Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Company,
The motion of Canal Barge Company to supplement the record in this case by addition of testimony given subsequently and in an unrelated case is Denied.
Notes
. The District Court concluded that, as administratrix of George L. Griffith’s estate, Mary Kathryn Griffith had standing to sue under both the Jones Act and the general maritime law. See 45 U.S.C. §§ 51, 59; 46 U.S.C. § 688; Lindgren v. U. S.,
. Exhaustive findings of fact detailing with precision every aspect of the collision and damages appear in the District Court’s opinion reported at 323 P.Supp. 805.
. 14 Stat. 246 (3866), as amended, 35 Stat. 123 (1868).
. 323 F.Sum). at S22-823.
.
. In Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines,
. United States Steel Corp. v. Fuhrman,
. There was evidence that on four of those passages high water conditions did not prevail and on the fifth, when they did, it was not clear that the passage took place during Griffith’s watch. Indeed the most reasonable inference is to the contrary.
. Canal has noted in addition that no witness who testified about the three-bridge summaries had actual knowledge of train movements which the records purported to show and that the person who made the analysis and prepared the records was not present for cross-examination. We do not concern ourselves with these objections which relate primarily to the admissibility of the evidence, for Canal never objected to admissibility. In fact, Canal admitted in response to Terminal’s Request for Admission of Fact that the records were prepared in the ordinary course of business, were maintained in the ordinary course of business, and were regular business records of Terminal, and it denied only the accuracy of the records.
. The record refutes Canal’s contention that the decedent’s adult married daughter who was gainfully employed and receiving an allotment from her estranged husband was not entitled to any damages for her father’s wrongful death. The evidence showed that she was dependent on her father for food and lodging.
. Our independent examination of the briefs in Cunningham reveals that plaintiff produced an actuary who testified that the dollar could be expected to decline in value at an average annual rate of 2% over plaintiff’s remaining anticipated worklife. In light of this testimony, Cunningham must be read as rejecting any logical or practical distinction between an instruction as to the dollar’s present deflated value, which had been previously approved in New Amsterdam Co. v. Soileau,
. In Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co.,
Prior to revision of Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co. on petition for rehearing, this court in Crador v. Boh Bros., Inc.,
. This circuit also holds that a trial judge commits no error in refusing to instruct the jury that lump sum awards in personal injury actions are not subject to income taxation. See Greco v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R.,
. This circuit recognizes a distinction between damages for loss of such measurable services as transportation and home repairs, and damages for survivor’s grief.
See Dennis v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp.,
. Dennis also upheld recovery of funeral expenses, which also are not recoverable under DOHSA. See
. An additional cine not mentioned in Dennis is that pain and suffering damages are recoverable in actions under the
. In discussing the importance of state death acts, Dennis states: “As Moragne teaches, it would be anomalous for us to take away a pre- ( Moragne remedy which was almost universally available by the application of state survival statutes when there is no federal maritime policy against such recovery.”
“Our recognition of a right to recover for wrongful death under general maritime law will assure uniform vidication of federal policies, removing the tensions and discrepancies that have resulted from the necessity to accommodate state remedial statutes to exclusively maritime substantive concepts.”
. We are indebted to Judge Rubin for the thorough research in Sincere Navigation, which has served as a key to our inquiry into the nature of recovery under the various state death acts.
. Recovery for death caused by unseaworthiness is allowed under the statutes of the following states : California, Curry v. Fred Olsen Line,
. See 1962 S.C. Laws Ann. § 10-1954 [recovery for mental anguish allowed since Brickman v. Southern Ry.,
. See Md.Code Ann. art. 67, § 4 [maritime law incorporated into statute with Maryland v. Nabella,
. Searching for analogies in gost-Moragne cases that apply state statutes in a maritime action may be unproductive. At least three cases hold that the Moragne remedy entirely supplants recovery under state law. See Hornsby v. Fish Meal Co.,
The current area of state law providing the most persuasive clues for effectuation of the maritime duty of unseaworthiness may be the law of strict products liability. Both strict products liability and liability for unseawortliiness are a species of liability without fault. Indeed, at least one commentator has suggested that Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki,
. For example, under McAllister v. Magnolia Pet. Co.,
. Sincere Navigation cites 24 states as allowing recovery for psychic injury to beneficiaries in a death action.
. See note 12 supra.
. The Restatement would allow recovery for unintentionally inflicted psychic injury arising upon harm to a third person only when the tortfeasor has placed the one suffering psychic injury in fear of bodily harm. Restatement (Second) § 313 (1965). See also Id. § 46.