Death on the High Seas Act

Legislative history and purpose Prior to DOHSA's enactment, advocates for the bill were concerned that no remedies were available for an individual who died on the high seas, which are outside of the reach of state and federal jurisdiction. The Bill received support from the judicial branch as well, with some individuals noting a need for a uniform law to apply to these types of maritime disputes. After the Titanic sank in 1912, awareness of maritime deaths increased, and the Act finally passed in 1920. The Act originally only applied to deaths occurring on the high seas, "beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United States." When the Act applies to a particular incident, it is the parties' exclusive remedy for wrongful death claims and it preempts any additional claims for wrongful death or pre-death pain and suffering under state law or general maritime law. The Act does not necessarily prevent the beneficiaries from making claims based on their own pain and suffering, if they personally witnessed the incident that caused the death. In other words, damages under the Act are calculated based on "the pecuniary benefits that the beneficiaries might reasonably be expected to have derived from the decedent had his life not been terminated," or the amount of money that the deceased individual would have contributed to the surviving family members lives if they had not died. Damages should be calculated based on the deceased's age, earning potential, overall health, and the amount of contribution made to the surviving relatives' lives prior to death. Courts differ in their treatment of reimbursing funeral expenses as pecuniary losses under DOHSA, some courts allow recovery of funeral expenses while others do not. However, when Congress amended DOHSA in 2000, it expanded the available remedies for certain deaths resulting from commercial airline disasters, and surviving relatives of these decedents may now recover additional damages "for loss of care, comfort, and companionship." Lawsuits under DOHSA may generally be brought by a decedent's surviving spouse, parent, child, or other dependent relative, or the personal representative of the decedent's estate if one of the surviving family members lacks standing (most commonly done when a suit is being brought on behalf of a minor child). While DOHSA preempts state laws and other generally applicable maritime laws, survivors may make concurrent claims under both DOHSA and the Jones Act if both the decedent's employer and another third-party were at fault for the death. == Subsequent litigation and amendments ==

TWA Flight 800 crash In 1996, TWA Flight 800 crashed shortly after taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport, and all 230 passengers and crew members died. The crash generated extensive litigation, and the airline defendants argued that because the crash occurred more than 3 nautical miles from the United States' shores, DOHSA should apply and the plaintiffs' claims should be limited to pecuniary damages only. In other words, if DOHSA applied, the plaintiffs could not recover damages based on the decedent's pain and suffering, survivors' pain and suffering, loss of consortium, or other punitive damages. Plaintiffs argued that DOSHA should not apply to the crash because it did not occur on "the high seas," because it occurred only eight nautical miles from shore. Notably, though, the Proclamation included a disclaimer stating that it was not intended to modify “existing Federal or State law or any jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations derived therefrom.” 2000 amendments While TWA 800 litigation was pending, survivors' families were also busy lobbying for legislative relief. Seven days after the Second Circuit's decision, President Clinton signed a bill into law officially amending DOHSA, to apply retroactively to commercial airline crashes occurring on or after July 16, 1996 (the day before TWA 800 crashed), if the crash occurred more than 12 nautical miles from shore. This amendment is often referred to as the Commercial Aviation Exception. In Brown v. Eurocopter S.A., the court held that DOHSA applied to an on-demand air taxi helicopter flight, and the surviving relatives could recover non-pecuniary damages under § 30307. The Commercial Aviation Exception greatly expanded the potential amount of recovery for surviving relatives of commercial aviation disasters, but Congress notably did not expand recovery for surviving relatives of maritime disasters, particularly in regard to incidents occurring on commercial cruise ships, or incidents occurring on non-commercial aircraft. This discrepancy generated widespread criticism of the statute and has prompted additional proposed legislation to provide the same coverage to surviving relatives of those individuals. == Proposed legislation and criticism ==

Because the Commercial Aviation Exception did not expand the allowed amounts of recovery for survivors of non-commercial aircraft accidents or incidents on cruise ships, families of those decedents and other commenters have spoken out criticizing the cruise industry and the way DOHSA often shields large cruise lines from significant liability. After an investigation by the Peruvian Navy, the Hammers' daughters learned that their parents may have survived the fire if the ship's crew had been properly instructed on fire safety and inspection procedures, since the fire alarm never went off and the couple's cabin contained a faulty electrical power strip. The bill, if passed, would amend § 30307 of DOHSA (the Commercial Aviation Exception) to allow recovery of non-pecuniary damages for both commercial aviation accidents and cruise ship voyage accidents. The bill would amend § 30302 of DOHSA to expand recovery for surviving family members of victims of maritime deaths to allow recovery for "the pre-death pain and suffering of the decedent, and non-pecuniary damages for the loss of care, comfort, and companionship of a family member of a decedent' after 'action is brought.'" Maa claimed that the cruise line failed to disclose the severity of the virus, after two passengers died on board, and argued that DOHSA should not apply because her husband died after returning to shore. == See also ==