Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
INTERNATIONAL CASE-NOTE MARITIME WRONGFUL DEATH
Bodden v. American Offshore Inc.
I. Introduction
Maritime wrongful death actions in the United States are maintainable in many forms, upon many different theories, and by diverse claimants.1 Although the Framers’ purpose in allocating admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to Federal authorities was ostensibly to assure nationwide uniformity, certainty, and enforceability, in fact, maritime law in the U.S. applicable to wrongful death claims is far from precise.2
This note will examine the decision in Bodden v. American Offshore Inc.3 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held by a majority that the wife of a seaman, who recovered during his lifetime for personal injuries on a vessel on the high seas and released his claim, and who later committed suicide due to recurring headaches, was not barred from bringing her own action for wrongful death against the owner of the vessel based on unseaworthiness.4 This examination of the Bodden decision will also show the background of maritime wrongful death remedies and the possible courses of action a claimant may pursue.
II. Background: maritime wrongful death
Historically, in admiralty, no recovery was available in a case where a sailor died on a vessel.5 But in early American admiralty courts, such recovery was allowed.6
1 Forms of action: Jones Act claim, general maritime claim, Death on the High Seas Act claim (DOHSA), Longshoremen & Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LSHWCA) claim.
Theories: negligence, breach of warranty (unseaworthiness), breach of maritime duty (imposed by law or statute), employee status (LSHWCA).
Claimants: See fn. 16, infra.
Jones Act claims may only be prosecuted for the wrongful death or injury of a seaman. DOHSA and general maritime claims may be prosecuted for the wrongful death of any person. See fns. 12–32, infra. It seems from Alvez v. American Export Lines Inc., 446 U.S. 274, 1980 A.M.C. 618 (1980) that general maritime law may be utilized to secure tort damages also.
2 Diversity is the rule rather than the exception. As to the Framers’ intention, see generally D. Robertson, Admiralty and Federalism 6–27 (1970).
3 681 F. 2d 319, 1982 A.M.C. 2409 (5th Cir. 1982). Cf. Seaboard Line R. Co. v. Oliver, 261 F. 1 (5th Cir. 1919) (FELA’S disjunctive or precludes recovery by a decedent in his lifetime and by his personal representative after his death.)
4 681 F. 2d, at p. 331, 1983 A.M.C., at p. 2428 (emphasis supplied).
5 J. Sims, The American Law of Maritime Personal Injury and Death: An Historical Overview, 55 Tul. L. Rev. 973, 1004, fn. 193 (1981). That commentator notes that the “only duty owed the survivors of a deceased seaman, irrespective of the cause of his death, was the payment of wages and the return of his effects”, citing Consolato Del Mare, Sea Code of of Charles V, Maritime Ordinances of Louis XIV, Arts. 13 and 14, and a Treatise by Francis Pyrard deLaval, Advis Pour Aller Aux Indies Orientales. Ibid. Most of these sea laws are reproduced in An Appendix of the United States Circuit and District Court Reports, 30 F. Cas. 1171 (concerning early maritime laws). See Bodden, 681 F. 2d, at p. 322, fn. 12, 1982 A.M.C., at p. 2414, fn. 12.
6 See Moragne v. States Marine Lines Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 387–88, 1970 A.M.C. 967, 977 (1970), and cases there cited.
295