Intro to Law, pg 213-226

Van Beeck v. Sabine Towing Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1937.
300 U.S. 342, 57 S. Ct. 452, 81 L.Ed. 685.

Facts: The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 gives a cause of action to the rep of a seaman who dies in the course of his employment by his employer's negligence. In this case, the beneficiary of the seaman dies during the course of the suit.

Procedure: Trial court dismissed the claim (for losses up to the beneficiary's death); intermediate appellate court affirmed.

Issue: Does liability abate when the beneficiary of the cause of action dies?

Holding: No.

Reasoning: The losses suffered by the beneficiary don't just disappear upon death and should be applied to their estate, especially as this is in line with what the statute was designed to fix. The statute exists to prevent negligence torts from evaporating at death, so her cause of action should continue as well beyond her death.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham
Supreme Court of the United States, 1978.
436 U.S. 618, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 56 L.Ed.2d 581.

Facts: A helicopter crashed on the high seas, killing the pilot and three passengers. The passengers' widows brought suit against the petitioner.

Procedure: District Court accepted admiralty jurisdiction and found that the deaths were due to the petitioner's negligence; they awarded damages for pecuniary losses. The District Court held that the law did not authorize recovery for loss of society. Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue: Does the law authorize loss of society damages?

Holding: No.

Reasoning: Congress specifically limited DOHSA beneficiaries to recovery of pecuniary losses. There is no room for pretending other losses might be allowed. (Dissent held the opposite, interpreting the statute to say that the beneficiaries should at the least be able to recover their pecuniary losses, and that listing only pecuniary losses did not exclude any other kind of loss from recovery.)

Clymer v. Webster
Supreme Court of Vermont, 1991
156 Vt. 614, 596 A.2d 905

Facts: Webster got drunk at a bar, left and in driving home, struck and killed a girl. The girl's parents sued both the driver and the bar. They settled with the driver.

Procedure: The trial court ruled for the defendants, saying that the damages (medical and funeral expenses and lost services and guidance) did not exceed the $120k already recovered from the negligent driver.

Issue: Does it matter that the decedent was an adult and not a minor child?

Holding: No.

Reasoning: The statute in question was remedial and therefor should be construed liberally.

Hill v. City of Germantown
Supreme Court of Tennessee, 2000.
31 S.W.3d 234

Facts: Plaintiffs sued the City of Germantown because their wives were killed in the course of a high speed chase conducted by a city cop who was negligently trained.

Procedure: Trial court found for the plaintiffs and awarded pecuniary damages but refused loss of consortium. Nevertheless, The plaintiffs each recovered the maximum permitted by the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Court of Appeals affirmed- loss of consortium damages were not not available at the time their causes of action accrued, and Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp. could not be applied retroactively.

Issue: Does the Supreme Court of Tennessee decision, Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., apply retroactively to this case?

Holding: Yes, though it hardly matters because the plaintiffs cannot be awarded any more damages under the Governmental Tort Liability Act.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court's decision in Jordan didn't say that it could be applied retroactively, but that was an oversight and they are fixing it in this case.