Miles v. Apex Marine Corporation

498 U.S. 19 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ludwick was a seaman aboard the vessel M/V Archon. Clifford Melrose, a fellow crew member, stabbed Ludwick repeatedly, killing him. At the time, the ship was docked in the harbor of Vancouver, Washington. P sued D. P alleged negligence under the Jones Act, and breach of the warranty of seaworthiness under general maritime law for hiring a crew member unfit to serve. P sought compensation for loss of support and services and loss of society resulting from the death of her son, punitive damages, and compensation to the estate for Ludwick's pain and suffering prior to his death and for his lost future income. The Court granted D's motion to strike the claim for punitive damages, ruled that the estate could not recover lost future income, and denied P's motion for a directed verdict as to negligence and unseaworthiness. The court instructed the jury that P could not recover damages for loss of society if they found that she was not financially dependent on her son. The jury found D negligent and that Ludwick was 7% contributorily negligent in causing his death, but that the ship was seaworthy. The jury awarded P $7,254 for the loss of support and services of her son and awarded the estate $130,200 for Ludwick's pain and suffering. The jury also found that P was not financially dependent on her son and therefore not entitled to damages for loss of society. The District Court denied both parties' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of negligence on the part of D but held that there was insufficient evidence to support the contributory negligence finding. The court also found that Melrose's extraordinarily violent disposition demonstrated that he was unfit and therefore that the Archon was unseaworthy as a matter of law. The court considered two questions concerning the scope of damages under general maritime law. The court reaffirmed its prior decision in Sistrunk holding that a nondependent parent may not recover for loss of society in a general maritime wrongful death action. It also held that general maritime law does not permit a survival action for the decedent's lost future earnings. P appealed.