Brief - Moragne v states marine lines, inc PDF

Preview

Summary

outline for the case...

Description

Wrongful death

Madden Moragne v states Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970)

Plaintiff: Moragne’s wife Defendant: Employer of deceased husband Cause of Action: Relief Sought: Basis for Dispute: Facts: - NOT in case (quimbee): Moragne was killed while working on a ship owned by ∆. Moragne’s wife brought suit for wrongful death as representative of Moragne’s estate. - The common law (felony-merger doctrine) did not allow civil recovery for an act that constitutes both a tort and a felony. The tort was treated as less important than the offense against the Crown, and was merged into, or pre-empted by, the felony. The doctrine found practical justification in the fact that the punishment for the felony was the death of the felon and the forfeiture of his property to the Crown. Thus, after the crime had been punished, nothing remained of the felon or his property on which to base a civil action. - American law did adopt a vestige of the felony-merger doctrine, to the effect that a civil action was delayed until after the criminal trial. However, in America, the felony punishment did not include forfeiture of property; therefore, there was nothing to bar a subsequent civil suit. Procedural History: The court of appeals followed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Harrisburg (1886) and held that a cause of action for wrongful death does not exist in maritime law. Moragne’s wife appealed. Issue1: Does a cause of action for wrongful death exist in maritime law? Rule: A cause of action for wrongful death exists in maritime law. Application: The court overrules Harrisburg and holds that a cause of action for wrongful death exists in maritime law. Harrisburg was the common law felony-merger doctrine. However, the court said that this doctrine is no longer viable in the US. Now, every state in the US has a wrongful death statute. And the doctrine of stare decises does not automatically rule out any change in the law. The court found that there was no justification in upholding Harrisburg and Moragne’s wife may bring a wrongful death suit. Conclusion: Court of appeals is reversed.

Wrongful death

Madden

NOTES Under the felony merger doctrine, all killings, even accidental ones, resulted in criminal prosecutions against the ∆ that pre-empted any subsequent civil action for damages due to death. - In 1886, Parliament enacted the Lord Campbell’s Act which was created a new cause of action for the wrongful death of any person, in favor of certain designated classes of beneficiaries of the deceased. o Children o Spouses o Parents - Typically, the damages included such things as the beneficiary’s: o Loss of financial support o Emotional grief caused by the death of the decedent - Apart from these designated statutory beneficiaries, no other persons were entitled to sue in tort for their damages resulting from the decedent’s death, even under the Lord Campbell’s Act. - The English Parliament eventually modified the common law rule by enacting SURVIVAL STATUTES. o These statutes basically listed specific types of tort actions that were allowed to survive (continue in existence) after the death of each litigant. o They simply continued certain causes of action that already existed rather than creating an entirely new cause of action in favor of the designated beneficiaries of the decedent. - Tort damages recoverable under a typical survival statute were those which the decedent personally could have recovered had she survived and not died. Such damages included: o Personal losses (pertaining to the decedent’s own personal pain and suffering) o Loss of earnings o Personal property damage o And any other out-of-pocket losses incurred on behalf of the decedent prior to death - Survival statutes v. wrongful death o Tort damages that are recoverable under most survival statutes involve entirely different categories of losses resulting from the decedent’s death (those incurred by the decedent’s own estate rather than those sustained by various designated beneficiaries of the decedent). MODERN DEATH STATUTES - In most jurisdictions, the tortious death of a person potentially resulted in 2 completely separate types of actions: a survival action brought by the decedent’s own personal estate for damages that would have been recoverable by the decedent personally, had she survived; AND - A wrongful death action brought on behalf of each of the decedent’s statutorily designated beneficiaries to recover for their own individual damages arising from the decedent’s death. - Some courts simply prohibited the filing of both types of death actions as the result of the decedent’s death, permitting only one or the other type of death action to be filed. - As a result of problems, legislatures in many jurisdictions today have enacted new statutes that expressly authorize the recover of specific components of damages typically associated with both former types of statutes into a single statutory death action. (California) - Other jurisdictions continue to recognize both types of separate death and survival actions (south Carolina) - Putatitve spouse = the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid. PERSONHOOD - Death statutes/surviving statutes require the death of a person. What is a person? See o’Grady v. Brown. -

Wrongful death

Madden...