Hess v. United States

1960-01-18

Headline: Maritime death suits: Court allows Oregon’s Employers’ Liability Law to be applied, enabling broader wrongful-death claims against dam or vessel operators for deaths on state navigable waters while leaving state-law details to lower courts.

Holding: The Court holds that Oregon’s Employers’ Liability Law may be used to bring wrongful-death claims for deaths on navigable waters in that State, and sent the case back to lower courts to decide state-law applicability.

Real World Impact:

Lets families invoke Oregon’s tougher Employers’ Liability Law for deaths on state navigable waters.
Requires lower courts to decide whether the state law applies to specific maritime facts.
Leaves open whether the United States violated the state standard of care in this case.

Topics: maritime deaths, wrongful death, state employer liability, government-owned dam accidents

Summary

Background

A worker, George W. Graham, drowned while working for a private contractor at Bonneville Dam, a facility owned and operated by the United States. The contractor had asked dam operators to close extra spillway gates; a tug-and-barge party struck a pier, took on water, and capsized in turbulent current. The worker’s family sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, relying both on Oregon’s general wrongful-death law and on Oregon’s Employers’ Liability Law, which imposes a higher safety duty and allows unlimited damages in some cases.

Reasoning

The Court explained that deaths on navigable waters fall under maritime law, but admiralty can enforce state wrongful-death statutes when those statutes apply. The Court held there is no constitutional barrier to applying Oregon’s Employers’ Liability Law to a maritime death in that State. The Court did not decide whether the Oregon law actually covers these facts or whether the United States violated that law. Instead the Court set aside the judgment and sent the case back to the lower courts to sort out state-law applicability and liability.

Real world impact

The decision means families in Oregon may be allowed to use the State’s stronger employers’ safety rules in maritime death claims, subject to further state-law analysis. The ruling is not a final finding of liability; lower courts must still determine whether the statute applies to these facts and whether the United States failed to meet the state standard.

Dissents or concurrances

A strong dissent argued that the Oregon law imposes a stricter duty than federal maritime law and should not be applied; several Justices joined the opinion only because of a prior controlling decision.