*1 ADMINISTRATRIX, v. UNION CARBIDE GOETT,
CORP. et al. Argued November
No. 3. January 18, 1960. Decided petitioner. Harvey argued the cause Goldstein Pauley and Ernest Franklin him the brief were With on. Eldridge Sampliner. M. argued Charles Love the cause and filed a brief for Corporation, respondent. Carbide Homer A. Union *2 Holt, T. William O’Farrell and D. Johnson a filed David brief Barge Co., respondent. for Amherst
Per Curiam. This a against was libel in brought respondent Corporation Union Carbide by petitioner, the adminis- tratrix of Marvin Paul Goett. Goett had been em- an * ployee respondent of Barge Amherst Company, which was in engaged repairing barge river owned Union. decedent was working barge on the when he fell off into the waters of the River, Kanawha and, after- fruitless rescue, efforts at theory was drowned. The of the libel that, was alternatively, was negligent Union in turning over the barge to Amherst without its being equipped with equipment, rescue or that the vessel was unsea- worthy without such equipment; and that the lack of equipment rescue caused the decedent’s death. The acci dent had place taken in West waters and that State’s Wrongful Death upon. Act was relied The Dis trict Court found that the was in vessel fact unseaworthy and that negligent Union was in respect charged, caus ing the death of decedent, and that the decedent was not shown to have of guilty been contributory negligence or to have assumed the risk. The District Court bottomed liability Union’s on negligence, petitioner awarded in $20,000 damages, the maximum allowable under the . Act, finding that though the actual damages were substantially higher; On Union’s appeal to the Appeals, the judgment was reversed. 256 F. 2d 449.
The Court of Appeals held a- that, as matter of Union owed no duty to the employees Amherst once the vessel had been turned over the latter. It accord- finding negligence. reversed the District
ingly Court’s contrary Court, It further to the District held, accident, at the time unseaworthy vessel was not person any event the decedent not In warranty whom the was owed. seaworthiness pass question light determination, of this it did be in event available would unseaworthiness recovery Virginia wrongful as a groiind a. granted certiorari. a maritime tort. We involving action the deci This lower courts before case was decided Skovgaard, sion of this Court it was it .was a where held U. law to proper law what is the substantive
state as to jurisdic torts the territorial applied to maritime within *3 . Hess wrongful tions of death cases. See v the States States, ante, p. holding, Under sub case, might apply maritime the State the tort death applicable to stantive cases generally law it to territory, might incorporate its or choose the within or concepts maritime law’s of unseaworthiness general Appeals the negligence.1 Here Court of did not decide Virginia adopted. the West Act It which standard applying not articulate on .what basis was fed did it it- is no was; eral law if in fact there intimation that Virginia incorporated it believed the West Act the mari negligence standard, time law’s fact it expressly that Act open incorporated left the- maritime of seaworthiness. It seems standard more likely passed to us to have on the issue as negligence it law; only apply- matter federal maritime cited cases 1 general examples concept negligence, For of the maritime law’s Gompagnie Transatlantique, 625; see Kermarec v. Generate 358 U. S. Pope Inc., Hawn, Morris, Talbot, 406, 409; & The 346 U. S. Max 14-15. ing the maritime law’s general Jones Act’s con- cepts general Vir- negligence, treatises; no West ginia authority upon.2 relied The least that can be said is highly that it is doubtful3 which law the Court of Appeals and so in applied; the absence expres- sion it Virginia of which standard West Act adopted, we do believe we can permit judgment in The Tungus. intervening stand after our decision Accordingly, so that of Appeals, the Court which is . closer than we to matters of law, may pass local the questions of Virginia light law involved in the in The of this Court’s fungus, we vacate its holding judgment and remand the cause to it to determine: (a) Virginia Whether the West Act, as to this tort, employs maritime or the- law concept negligence; and, light determination, of its (b) whether judge’s the district finding as to is negligence correct finder the proper sub- stantive law. To facilitate our discretionary review of respondent precedents here cites West in an effort Appeals’ sustain Court of determination. vie;ws dissenting opinions of the here confirm in our us doubts. Some of the dissents the view that take Court of Appeals should be undoubtedly because it point affirmed decided the as a matter of state while another is of the view that the Court should be sufficiently affirmed because it made clear that point decided a matter of federal law. Our views lie between *4 these two. 4While the Court of right declared that “The to maintain suit such a can be enforced in only in accordance with being substantive law the state adopted,” whose statute is 2d, 453, 256 F. probably at this discussion seems to us to have been in monetary the context of the Certainly limitation of the Act. there specific nowas identification of this statement with the discussion of negligence finding justified. whether the And if the statement is adopt taken to mean that standard, a State cannot the maritime it is not correct. it unseaworthiness, as to Appeals’ findings Act
should also determine general maritime law incorporates this standard of the involving maritime torts. Cf. Barr in v. death actions Matteo, S. 171.5 U.
Vacated and remanded. whom Frank- Harlan, Justice Mr. Justice Mr. joins, dissenting. furter on the disposition
I of this case from the Court’s dissent grounds: following my in Brother Stewart’s
First. For reasons elaborated for con- is no reasonable basis dissenting opinion, there neg- of the disposition cluding Appeals’ that the Court of cause of did not rest state substan- ligence action in actions con- law, tive which Tungus Skovgaard, if, as The 588, v. U. S. trols, v. Hess in my dissenting opinion in expressed States, ante, greater duties than p. impose it does not by maritime substantive law. those created no the state any event, being suggestion In there way obtaining those duty from standards differ of the negligence the remand cause under maritime Douglas Black, Mr. Mr. Justice, The Chief Justice Justice solely join opinion, but under com and Mr. Justice Brennan Skovgaard, ruling The 358 U. pulsion of the Court’s represented They long as the of the law believe that as view evenhandedly, Court, applied ruling prevails it should be originally joining despite contrary those it views of some' of defendant, recovery helps the when it state law is measure of recovery it Tungus, when militates and is not the measure as in ante, States, p. 314. against defendant, as in Hess v. United disagreement ruling However, with the they their continued note position Tungus, as to whether it should and reserve their controversy application light overruled, particularly in the among original engendered subscribers. See the various has States, supra. in Hess v. United separate opinions in this case *5 to Appeals seems to me be action to Court procedure. wasteful needless and therefore to cause action, Second. As the unseaworthiness such a no one that has doctrine of suggests Appeals deliberately The decided own. Court (256 454) F. at it need reach 2d, that not the difficult question Virginia Wrongful of whéther the West Death Statute embraced a of action for cause unseaworthihess in any based on because it found concepts, federal that federal the vessel not event, law, unseaworthy, under was and petitioner duty that the was not one to whom the to provide was seaworthy ship owing.
In grounds its decision these resting Court Appeals exercised the traditional discretion of court appears to choose it a ground what narrower clearer in preference decision to a broader and more contro- limits, verted does suggest one. of this discretion were exceeded this Cf. instance. Matteo, Barr v. In my. U. view we cannot properly require the-Court of Appeals decide a question which it intentionally sensibly open left unless we first reverse court on issues which it did decide. This the do. Court does not I Hence, believe there is no justification remanding the ease on this score. Whittaker, dissenting. Justice
Mr. persuaded am Court of has made sufficiently thought diversity, clear that it this admiralty, death governed by case
remedially supplemented by the Virginia Wrongful statute, it on properly décided that basis. opinion says that The Skov Court’s gaard, U. S. “decided that was a of state as to is the proper law what substantive law to applied juris to maritime within the torts territorial death diction of the States cases [and that] case, tort holding, a maritime [u]nder *6 applica- might apply substantive'law'generally State the might ble to or it wrongful territory, death cases within concepts law’s incorporate general choose maritime I do or not understand negligence.” unseaworthiness holding if hold, to so such a case any or by by intended its author the Justices who say . joined it, it'does not so. legal rights
It me that the substantive seems to admiralty liabilities in this case are not involved by rather, sense Virginia law, true but are governed admiralty jurisdiction within full reach of exclusive by and are to be measured the standards of the n Trans Compagnie Kermarec Generale atlantique, r'emedially supplemented 625, 628, as See by the'West Death Wrongful statute. Tungus, supra, at 592.
Although Wrongful state Death are not ones statutes spoken creating are survivorship generally of as a new cause it seems death, of action rather clear that statute, the West Death like most Wrongful others, only pro- creates a cause of action the sense of remedy a viding resulting for death from an act made statutory or wrongful by common, other laws—whether maritime laws—which would have redressed the wrong Code, (5). “if death had not ensued.” Va. § W. when, by And in' a encompassed case the terms of the Death statute, admiralty “adopts” State’s such remedy statute, only does so afford for a substan- action, which, tive cause of created maritime law ensued,” have it. “if death would redressed had It is that when “adopts” true State’s statute “it enforce as an inte- Wrongful Death must [it] whatever condition's grated whole, with and limitations The Tungus, supra, has creating attached.” at State Virginia Wrongful statute, 592. But the apart prescribing statutes, like state from most such who may prosecute, action, the time within which it must brought, recovery, and the measure and limit of has only neglect “act, attached the condition that the [be] default, or such as . . . have would entitled the party injured damages to maintain an action to recover respect [if ensued]W. Code, thereof death had not Va. (5). Surely § neglect 1955, 5474 means that act, or default, must be such would, under other laws— statutory, common, or maritime laws—have party injured damages respect entitled to recover “if thereof death had not ensued.” *7 Adoption by admiralty of such a remedial statute can- permitted expand not be to, not, and does so the essential purposes general and characteristic features of the mari- proper time law as to interfere with its nation-wide har- mony uniformity, and Jensen, Southern Co. v. Pacific S. 205; Garcia, U. By Western Fuel Co. v. U. S. adoption, admiralty only remedy
such takes over the by Wrongful afforded for death the State’s Death stat- thereby ute—albeit the whole thereof. It does not aban- nonconflicting admiralty don the substantive law which gave right rise to the of action that it would have enforced “if death had not ensued.” In such a real and case; the right by, in substantive suit is still the one created and— conflicting adopted to the extent not with State Wrongful governed by, Death statute —is the maritime law. Tungus
This is Iwhat understood the case mean joined it, Iwhen and re-examination of it confirms that I conclusion. submit there is not a to the word it contrary. sepa- And this conclusion is buttressed opinion my rate Brother Brennan case. that Although many uniformly this Court has times and held for
that the maritime law creates no cause of action wrongful that, these, in circumstances like death, and admiralty “adopts” Wrongful the State’s Act, admiralty effect, that separate opinion said, merely would look to see the State had enacted wrongful “adopt” statute if it not and, had, death would remedy act fashion its put that but would aside and own 608-609, thought I wrongful which, for 358 U. at death, S., contrary holding and still is to this Court’s cases think, create a of action that maritime law-does not cause wrongful and in actions for death that, for of a arising State, the territorial waters Death Act cum “adopts” the State’s onere. I makes opinion believe that the of the Court Appeals reasonably regarded gov- the court this case clear that by, erned that it maritime law as applied, and remedially Virginia Wrongful supplemented by the West correctly Dea'th I also statute. believe court concluded maritime doctrine unseaworthiness respondent guilty was not applicable, was negligence causing contributing or the death cause petitioner’s decedent, because, barge as it found, both from navigation repairs withdrawn extensive completely out of points we respondent’s control — thoroughly only explored day. decided the other States, ante, West United p. 118. would affirm. *8 Stewart, Mr. dissenting. Justice
I. In this death wrongful action was incumbent Appeals the Court of law of apply substantive Virginia. today The Court finds it doubt- “highly ful” whether the Court of did so. no Appeals entertain (1) such doubt for the reasons: This Court’s following
349 1 Tungus Skovgaard, decision” in The v. 358 “intervening 588, principle, simply announced no new but U. S. restated in (2) Long a doctrine well established this Court. Tungus, in The this doctrine had been before the decision Circuit, specifically as the law the Fourth recognized (3) express language Appeals’ opinion The of the Court of clear that under- present case makes court apply its function was to' stood it did so. Tungus simply prin Our decision The reaffirmed a ciple many articulated in of this This decisions Court. principle, compendiously stated, admiralty is that en obligatio” by wrongful forces “the created a state death juris action “as it would one originating foreign v. Deupree, 648, diction.” Levinson 345 652. See U. S. Hamilton, Harrisburg, 199; 119 S. 207 S. U. U. 398; Bourgogne, La Western Fuel Co. v. 95; U. S. Garcia, weight authority, S. 233.2 this U. Under presumed Appeals it could be the Court of for the recognize, Fourth Circuit would other federal courts judgment present 1 The Court of in the case was May 27, entered The decision in The 1958. February 24, was announced 1959. respect The law took a turn with workmen’s different to state Jensen, compensation v. laws. See Southern Co. U. S. Pacific legislation 205. Such was differentiated from state by greater imposed shipowners statutes because of the burden “heavy penalties compensation onerous stat conditions” of utes, incapable of the “novel and because remedies enforcement Stewart, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. an court.” 253 U. years ago 149, pointed out that 166. More than 15 this Court already severely limited, no Jensen case has been and has “[T]he may vitality beyond workmen’s that Vrhich continue as state Murphy, Dredging compensation laws.” Standard Co. 319 U. S. 249; Department Labor, Hahn v. 309. Cf. Davis v. 317 U. S. Co., Ross Island Sand & Gravel *9 350
have recognized specific question arisen, whenever the has right to recover for death occurring the navigable waters of a to be by State is determined reference to state law.3
But there is
need to
in such
indulge
no
a presumption,
because the
of Appeals
Court
Circuit,
for the Fourth
sev-
years
present
eral
before
decided,
case was
manifested
a thorough understanding
of the controlling doctrine
exactly in
with
accord
the principles confirmed
by
Court
Tungus.
Cas-
last Term
In
Continental
ualty
Skou,
Benny
Co. v. F.
(C.
2d 246
A. 4th
Cir. 1952), a suit to recover for a
occurring
on board
a
ship
the territorial waters of Virginia, the court held
the action was
by
one-year
barred
limitation
contained
Act. The
court’s
reasoning
unambiguous:
right
“The
of action
which appellant has sought to enforce is one
solely
created
by 'the Virginia statute.
‘Virginia
. . .
has bestowed
upon admiralty
right
a
grant
recovery
previously
possessed by admiralty. The endowment must
taken
cum
onere.’ As
appellant
grounds his action
statute,
he is obliged
accept;the
in statute
entirety as construed by the Virginia court of last resort.”
Even if the
of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit
previously
had not
expressed such
clear understanding
that cases like
are
these
controlled
the substantive law
State,
think that its
opinion
present
case,
standing alone, unambiguously shows a recognition of
the duty to apply the substantive law of
Virginia.
3 See,
v.
g.,
e.
Massachusetts,
Turner Wilson Line
2d 414
F.
(C.
Cir.);
A. 1st
Pilots Assn.,
(C.
Halecki v.
II. Even if I agree were able to that is uncertain whether it. of Appeals decided this case under standards or law, state federal still could not in the join Court’s } judgment. if For even the Court of Appeals mistakenly applied substantive standards of federal maritime no purpose could be served remanding this case unless it were shown that the state is law somehow favor more able to petitioner. the' But showing— there has been no. nor suggestion any law of is in Virginia West —that any way plaintiffs more favorable to than the States, ante, Contrast Hess v. law.4 p. 314.
A remand of this is equally pointless case on the issue of whether, as a matter of Virginia law, the state incorporates (cid:127)death statute the maritime duty provid- seaworthy a ing vessel. The district found judge barge was unseaworthy, but went on to hold that “this is applicability case for the of the doctrine one contrary upon Indeed the case was to assump submitted us petitioner's argument tion. The pitched upon his contention Harrisburg, that we should overrule so that his rights.could respondent under determined law. The relied federal urging decisions in affirmance. ex- The' Court liability without fault.”
pressly deciding whether West refrained from the maritime con- imported Death statute has unseaworthiness, finding circumstances cept liability as under impose not such this case were if in the concept, incorporated even state statute. was not unsea- barge as a fact that The court found law that event held a matter of worthy, respect no of seaworthiness with warranty there could be navigation from delivered into vessel withdrawn dry company control of dock custody the sole *11 Only last month we unani- major repairs. purpose scope mously held that this of the of unseaworthiness view ante, States, v. p. correct. liability is point There is no the Court of requiring, completely make irrelevant an what would therefore so inquiry into an elusive of state I would affirm.