DOHSA limits those who may bring wrongful death actions to the decedents' wife, husband, parent, child or dependent relative." In Hollie v. Korean Airlines Co., No. 83 Civ. 7988(S.D.N.Y. 1994), the court held that a relative not a wife husband parent or child of the decedent must establish both dependency and pecuniary loss to recover damages under DOHSA. It also concluded that a niece and nephew of the decedent could bring a claim for loss of nurture, care and guidance if the decedent was freely acting in loco parentis for them.
In Preston v. Frantz, 11 F.3d 357 (2nd Cir. 1993), the Court held that state law providing for the recovery of a decedent's lost profits was preempted by federal maritime law. The Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the decedent's death, resulting from the crash of a helicopter transporting him from Connecticut to Nantucket Island, did not have a sufficient maritime nexus to trigger the application of maritime law.
In Boswell v. Bludworth Bond Shipyard, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 461 (S.D.Tex. 1994), the Court held that a step child was a proper plaintiff in a wrongful death action brought pursuant to DOHSA, and rejected the defendant's argument that state law should be applied.
In Davis v. Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Co., 27 F.3d 426 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 510(1994), the court interpreted DOHSA to preclude the estate of a drowned seaman from recovering lost future earnings in a survival action. It held that while survival actions are viable under general maritime law, it does not enhance or replace statutory remedies, which do not provide for recovery of future earnings in such cases.
| Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page |