THE ALASKA

U.S. | 1889-04-01
No. 1217
130 U.S. 201 Supreme Court of the United States (1889) Caution
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 923 · 9 S. Ct. 461 · 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1738 · SCDB 1888-161
Cited by 42 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this admiralty case, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts could maintain a suit to recover damages for deaths caused by negligence on the high seas when neither federal law nor applicable state law provided a right of action. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that absent an act of Congress or state statute creating a right of action for such deaths, admiralty courts could not entertain a negligence suit for loss of life on navigable waters, and that New York's wrongful death statute did not apply because the deaths occurred outside the state's jurisdiction.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr.. Justice Blatchfobd

Mr.. Justice Blatchfobd delivered the opinion of the court.

The object of the appeal is to obtain a decree here that the Alaska is.liable for the loss of the five lives. The ground alleged for the motion to dismiss the appeal is,'that the sum in dispute as to each of the five lives is not over the sum of $5000, and, therefore, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court. The view urged is, that the amount originally claimed by the supplemental libel for the loss of each of thé five lives was $5000; that the stipulation in the sum of $25,000, given to release the Alaska.from the five claims,-was $5000 for each claim, the amount in dispute in each case being one fifth of $25,000; and that the case stands as if each of the five parties had commenced a separate suit for $5000, and five separate stipulations had been given, each in that amount.

But, as the stipulation is a unit, and is for the sum of $25,000, and in it the stipulators agree that execution may issue for tfre $25,000 against their property, and the condition of the stipulation is, that the stipulators shall pay the money awarded by a final decree, (not exceeding, of course, $25,000,) and as the claim of damages made by each one of the five parties is, by the amendment of the libel, $10,000 instead of. $5000, it might very well be that some of the libellants would recover more than $5000, even on an apportionment of the damages. The fund of $25,000 is a common fund for the benefit of the five parties; and, on-the facts of this caso, the amount involved, on the question of jurisdiction, if not the entire sum of $25,000,. is, at least, the sum of $10,000 in each case. Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 31 et seq. and cases cited.

But there is sufficient color for. the .motion to dismiss, to warrant us it£ entertaining the motion to affirm. Whitney v. Cook, 99 U. S. 607; Hinckley v. Morton, 103 U. S. 764; Micas v. Williams, 104 U. S. 556; The S. C. Tryon, 105 U. S. 267; Independent School Dist. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 428 ; Davies v. Corbin, 113 U. S. 687.

On the merits, we are of opinion that this case is governed by the decision in the case of The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, and that this appeal was taken for delay only. In the case of The Harrisburg, it was held that, in the absence of an act of Congress or of a statute of a State, giving a right of action therefor, a suit in admiralty could not. be maintained in the courts of the United States to recover damages for the death of a human being on' the high seas or on waters navigable from the sea, which was caused by negligence. It is admitted by the counsel for the libellants that the statute of New York, (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1902,) on the subject of actions for death by negligence, does not apply to the present case, because the deaths did not occur within the State of New York, or in waters subject to its jurisdiction. ' It is further to be said, that that statute gives a right of action' only to the executor or administrator of the deceased person, while the. present suit is brought by widows; and that the. statute provides only for a suit against an individual person or a corporation, and not for a proceeding in 'rem.

A distinction is sought to.be drawn between the present' case, and that of The Harrisburg, on the ground • that in that case the vessel was owned in Pennsylvania, while here the Alaska is a British vessel'; and that in that case the wrongful Pilling occurred in the waters of the State of Massachusetts, while here it occurred on the high seas. But we see no sound distinction between the two cases. In the case of The Harrisburg, the alleged negligence which resulted in the death occurred in a sound of the sea, embraced between the coast of Massachusetts and the islands of Martha’s Yineyárd and Nantucket, parts of the State of Massachusetts. ' The question involved and decided in that case was, whether the admiralty courts of the United States could take cognizance of a suit to recover damages for the death of a human being on the high seas or on waters navigable from the sea, caused by negligence, in the absence of an act of-Congress or a statute of a State, giving a right of action therefor. That question was answered by this court in the negative, and the decision entirely covers the present case.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, cmd the degree of the Cirgwit Court is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1917)
    …me occupation. Indeed, with respect to injuries that result in death, it already is settled that although the general maritime law, like the common law, afforded no, civil remedy for death by wrongful act (The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 209), yet a right of action created by statute is enforceable in a state court although thé tort was committed upon navigable water (Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 533; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 104), and the liability arising out of…
  • W. Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1921)
    …sulting from.death. The maritime law as generally accepted by maritime nations leaves the matter untouched and in practice each of them has applied the same rule for the sea which it maintains on land. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 204, 213; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 209; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 138, 139. How far this rule of non-liability adopted and enforced by our admiralty courts in the absence of an applicable statute may be modified, changed or supplemented by state legislation has been the subject o…
  • Workman v. N.Y. City, 179 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1900)
    …r under the maritime law of this country are not different from those under the common law, and as it is the duty of courts to declare the law, not to make it, we cannot change the rule.” The Harrisburg, (1886) 119 U. S. 199, 213; The Alaska, (1889) 130 U. S. 201; The Corsair, (1892) 145 U. S. 335; The Albert Dumois, (1900) 177 U. S. 240, 259. The cases of The Siren, (1868) 7 Wall. 152, and The Davis, (1869) 10 Wall. 15, related wholly to claims against the United States, as compared with claims against pri…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (22 total)

View all 22 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw