Admiralty and federalism in the wake of Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Calhoun: is Yamaha a cry by the judiciary for legislative action in state territorial waters?

• Author: Lapp, David R.

On July 6, 1989, tragedy and sorrow beset the waters near Humanco, Puerto Rico.(1) Natalie Calhoun and her family were vacationing in Puerto Rico with family friends at the Palmas Del Mar Resort.(2) On that ill-fated afternoon, twelve-year-old Natalie Calhoun rented a Yamaha "WaveJammer" and set out on a ride over the ocean waters.(3) Tragically, the ride did not go as planned and was cut short when Natalie's WaveJammer slammed into the side of an anchored vessel in the waters off of a hotel frontage.(4) The crash resulted in Natalie's death.(5) Weeks later, Natalie's parents, Lucien and Robin Calhoun, brought a suit against Yamaha in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and prayed for relief consistent with the Pennsylvania wrongful death and survival statutes.(6)

In response to the Calhouns' claim, Yamaha moved for a partial summary judgment arguing that the Supreme Court, in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.,(7) created a general maritime law wrongful death remedy that excluded the application of all state remedies for wrongful deaths of nonseamen occurring within territorial waters.(8) The Supreme Court rejected Yamaha's reasoning and held that the state law remedies were available to the Calhouns.(9) This decision touched off a rigorous debate and turned one family's tragedy into a maze of conflicting doctrines and interests.

Since the decision, courts have grappled with Yamaha in an attempt to balance the federal desire for uniformity in admiralty(10) with the proliferation of applicable state law remedies.(11) This debate over federalism, though exacerbated in Yamaha, is by no means new to maritime law.(12) The discrepancy between the supremacy of federal law and the protection of local interests is rooted deeply in maritime law.(13) The debate has been acute, particularly in the context of maritime wrongful death cases. Over the years, the courts have acknowledged that states have interests with respect to tortious actions culminating in death within their territorial waters.(14) These interests include (1) the establishment of general rights and duties of persons and property within state boundaries,(15) (2) the police power to prevent pauperism and dependency on the state by survivors,(16) and (3) the control over "certain local regulations of a maritime nature."(17) These state interests are counterbalanced by federal interests, such as (1) the protection of commerce,(18) (2) the maintenance of uniformity,(19) and (3) the supremacy of federal legislation.(20)

Though all of these interests are important judicial considerations, the potential erosion of uniformity in admiralty draws the most attention in the aftermath of Yamaha. Uniformity has always been a hallmark of maritime law;(21) however, Yamaha has led a number of commentators(22) and at least one court(23) to undermine the necessity of uniformity as a guiding principle. Questioning the principle of a uniform maritime law is problematic for it implicates the following possibilities: a state statute of limitations supplanting the federal statute of limitations, a state right to a jury trial being enforced in federal court, and state theories of negligence applying in federal actions.(24) Therefore, it is necessary to wrestle with the plausible intentions of the Court's opinion and what they mean for the future of admiralty law.

The following pages survey the expansion of wrongful death remedies in admiralty jurisprudence, including the effect of the augmentation of state remedies on the principles of uniformity and federalism. The first section of this Note discusses the history of wrongful death and briefly describes some of the unique features of admiralty jurisprudence.(25) The focus then shifts to the decision in Yamaha and its implications for the future of admiralty law.(26) The second section examines the Yamaha decision, with the analysis centering on the seemingly expansive role of state law by focusing on whether the treatment of federalism issues in Yamaha resuscitates the holding in The Tungus v. Skovgaard.(27) This question is resolved in the negative through two alternative theories. First, the analysis illustrates that The Tungus never approved of the expansive role for state law that was and is so often erroneously attributed to its holding.(28) Alternatively, this Note argues that the Court in Yamaha did not espouse the use of state law for anything more than a supplemental remedial measure in wrongful death actions.(29)

The third section discusses the difficulties encountered, particularly by the trial judge, when state law plays too great a role in maritime wrongful death actions. This section features a case study of the statutes of limitation in maritime actions.(30) This case study exemplifies one of the numerous abnormalities created when state law is applied as anything more than a supplement to federal law in the area of remedies.(31) Contrary to the assertions of some commentators,(32) the fourth section of this Note concludes that Yamaha was a delicately reasoned decision that attempted to maintain uniformity in the standard of liability while properly balancing competing interests pertaining to applicable remedies. Ultimately, Yamaha represents an appeal to Congress to develop a comprehensive statute applicable to nonseamen in territorial waters that is similar to the statutes governing seamen(33) and the high seas beyond the boundaries of United States territorial waters.(34) This law should be similar to and consistent with the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA)(35) and the Jones Act;(36) should preempt state remedies only when a federal remedy is in marked contrast to it; and should reaffirm the dominance of federal statutory authority in the maritime context.

THE HISTORY OF WRONGFUL DEATH AT SEA

A thorough exploration of the law with respect to wrongful death actions is necessary in order to understand the impact of Yamaha on the state of admiralty law in territorial waters. Admittedly, trying to pin down any conclusions with respect to the dangling questions in admiralty is an inexact science at best.(37) Nevertheless, an investigation into the Yamaha Court's intent is critical given the far-reaching effects of the decision on lawyers, judges, commercial ship owners, and state legislators.

Introduction to Maritime Law

To understand the history of maritime wrongful death actions, a brief survey of maritime law is necessary. Since the founding of the United States, maritime legal actions have been the province of the federal courts.(38) Although the Framers did not express any particular rationale behind the decision to create a federal admiralty jurisdiction,(39) evidence exists that they granted dominion to the federal judiciary to insure the protection of maritime commerce for the young nation.(40) The separation of admiralty jurisdiction from the common law resulted in a number of distinctive maritime rules, including trials by a judge with no recourse to a jury,(41) actions based on a maritime lien in rem,(42) and liability apportioned on the basis of comparative fault as opposed to contributory fault.(43)

In addition to these distinctive rules, maritime law also bears a unique standard of liability; not only does it provide for liability based on negligence,(44) it also allows for a remedy based on the owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel.(45) This cause of action centers on the duty of a vessel owner or operator to exercise due diligence to ensure that his vessel is seaworthy.(46) Over time the general maritime law recognized that the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is nondelegable.(47) Furthermore, it is well-recognized that the duty is absolute and that liability can be assessed independent of negligence.(48) In practice, in order to "state a cause of action for unseaworthiness a plaintiff must allege his injury was caused by a defective condition of the ship, its equipment or appurtenances."(49) The test for unseaworthiness is "whether the vessel, equipment or appurtenances were `reasonably fit for their intended use.'"(50) Once this evidence is established, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and will prevail in the absence of evidence showing that the appliances and machinery were reasonably fit for their intended usage.(51) The application of the doctrine of unseaworthiness to the maritime law of wrongful death actions is discussed at length below.

Pre-Yamaha Cases

The early cases involving maritime wrongful death actions excluded the application of state statutes;(52) however, the outcomes of wrongful death cases began to change as states began to adopt their own wrongful death acts.(53) In The Harrisburg,(54) the Court faced the difficult questions of whether federal law allowed an action for wrongful death in the absence of any statutory authority, and if not, whether the law allowed an action under the law of the state.(55) The case involved a claim of wrongful death brought by the widow of Silas Rickards, who died when his vessel, the Harrisburg, collided with a schooner, the Marietta Tilton, in Massachusetts's navigable waters.(56) The district court ruled in favor of Rickards's widow, holding that the general maritime law governed negligence actions in navigable waters and that the state statute of limitations did not bar such actions because the actions were federal.(57) The Supreme Court reversed the district court and held that no general federal maritime action existed and that only statutorily codified maritime wrongful death actions would succeed.(58) The Court, however, declined to address the question of whether the state wrongful death statute applied and, instead, found that the state statute of limitations barred the potential claim.(59) Thus, The Harrisburg concluded with the harsh result that wrongful death actions could not be brought under the general maritime law, but with uncertainty as to whether state statutory laws could provide a...