# Amicus Curiae Brief — Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0114%3A10 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1969 - **Citation:** 395 U.S. 352 ## Text INDEX . Page IND is cancicaruhsd db co-ela ile wines ata edidice ama a se 2 nk ccpnwecdccckandysrdinetdushsshmaeniedaies = Argument.____---------------- ERIC ELIE Nomen oro 5 I. In the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Con- gress did not change the coverage of the *Y Death on the High Seas Act_-_-__~ iicmetien 6 oad ' II. The Death -on the High Seas Act Covers _ Accidents Oceurring on ‘Offshore Drilling — PO as iccocuenbadeus cingadeeiens 12 ° ' III. The Application of the Death on the High : Seas Act to Accidents Occurring on Offshore Drilling Platforms Would Not Violate Con- stitutional Restrictions on the Scope. of Admiralty Jurisdigtion_ ------ Liplanbhaanatene 20 | Ci nncvndetaw ae deetse dsp ulineseenay ee CITATIONS — Cases: : ; Fe ee ee ee 22 ‘ Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389_------------------ 22, 23 : Plackheath, The, 195 U.S. 361__-.---------..---- — a Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co., 370 U.S. 114__-_-- 17 Cleveland Terminal R.R. Co. v. Cleveland S8S.S.. Co., Te EE ee en eon Sm apeRree 21, 23 D’ Aleman v. Pan American World Airways, 259 F. 2d ae a haa 15, 18 Dizon v. Oosting, 238 F. Supp. 25_-_------ a eade 16, 17 Dore v. Link Belt Company, 391 F. 2d 671_/___--___- 5 Dowlut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 US. Ta por eh ET ee A NE a See eee 15, 21, 23 Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U. 5. 206,....... 22 ‘yHamilton, The, 207 U.S. 398_--} pl teiddaaimeainann ne Harrisburg, The, 119 U.S. 199_'.--_------------_--- 13. 351-726—69——1 : : % - Cases—Continued Johnson ¥. Chicago & Pacific Elevator C., 119 US. Pago __—_ RE ERE Dot a eens On ty See RR ten 21 Loffiand Bros. Go. v. Roberts, 386 F. 2d 540 certiorari I I ie inci renconciwasiews 6 pa Se OB ne ae 21 Movwible Offehore Co. v. Ousley, 346 F. 2d 870---------- 6 Nazirema Operating Co., Inc. and John P. Traynor v. ~ Johnson, Nos. 528 and @3, Oct. Term 1968____-__- 19 Ocean Drilling & Exp. Co. v. “Berry Bros. Oilfield Serv. ae XS en ee 6 O'Donnell v. “Great Lakes-Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. | ick: chsh Meccan acs casing eee ennai nnd theta aaiannalin ms tnd demi aoe 16 Panoil, The, Se We Mi iicniccbdssihbacaanapunee 21, 23 ‘Phoenix Construction Co..v: The Steamer ig saree war ' + 212\ U.S. 558, es pe ee, 162 F, 2d opined wtedbnbishbtneniwsdnawbbbonnpeguas ae 22, 23 ,Pheniz Insurance Co., Ex Parte, 118 US. ER ee | * Plymouth, The, 3 Wall. ee See cand a 21-° Pure Oil Co. v. Snipes, 293 F. 2d 60__-- eee aed Oem t--* 6,24. Raithmoor, The, 241 U.S. 166--_------- ‘ ae 22, 23 Southern Pacific Co. v.. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205----- a 20 T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Taylor, 276 US. a 21 roe SE eee eee Ene OO Te Tungus, The v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 588_.....-.----- 13, 18 United Pilots Association v. Halecki, 358. U.S. 613---- 18 United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19... ---- ie 7 ”. United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 | EE icin capcoesescce CRS . oe et p Bes (| (iT PR nibnadnchcnnbwehnbewet — 2 ; : ee os. on ckewanwcdsonnbow 2,9 ~ % to Sree icclameaaaeicans 3 43 US.C. 1333(a), Sec. 4(a)-.---------- 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 2 USO AR, Gee. $0) x--2020-2--2056.-- 4 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1), Sec. 4(a)(1)-------------- 3.8 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2), Sec. 4(a)(2)------ locas 3,8,17°. . 43.US.C. 1333(c), Sec. 4(c)_------=--- slindinbas 18 0 SE EC Ei cluvkknckaseeconenniawewwe 8 ie ie cc enamanns .8 , Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S.C. 1301-1315-- = ae Berra Comment, 55 Colum. L. Rev. 907 (1986) Cee Peer 14, 15, 18 99 Cong. Rec. Fain aii A ici inl nannies nee mies 11 ioc onindpcsenaccevcunae sce ae ©) Come, Bee. TH06......a--...-.-..-.- Splietamiuns 12 - 99 Cong. .Reé.:7264._.---------=:------ we a - 99 Cong. Rec. 10500: ...--......---------=--2----- ‘it span H. Rep. No. 674, 66th Cong., PR cadineceen 14 is 5 H. Rep. No..413, 83rd Cong., Ist Sess.__----------- 6 i - Hearings on S. 1901, before the Senate Committeeon —_- Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 1st.Sess...- 10 - Hughes, Admiralty (2d Ed.),. S20 R rs, occ ccwnsee - et a Hughes, Death Actions in Admiralty, 31 Yale LJ. 115 | a reer side dite ulated ta sn en te a 13 Magruder ahd Grout, Wrongful Death ‘Within the Pe Admiralty Jurisdiction, 35 Yale L.J. 395 (1926) ___- 13, 15 Robinson, Tort Jurisdiction in American ao 84 U. Pa. L. Rev. 716 (1936) -----—" eh HT PFA CLSE: Robinson, Wrongful Death in Admiralty and the Con- — o flict of Laws, 36 Colum. L. Rev. 406 (1936) -- = ---- . * 8 S. Rep. No. 216, 66th Cong., Ist Sess.__------------ Be ah _S. Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong., Ist Sess......-------- 9,1 , : te ; r ° 2 = — : ‘ Rex. - 8 — — ; cs “ = . hee % 7 a ‘ ® ° ad . hg . z - .* : e 5 : e PS . F psi a , ~* 4 : . aa j ‘ ° . . ao Tos ‘ - : 7 » ‘ “ . . 7 ° ° a 2 * \ : . ° * ? . oe - ; . . x : “6 7 . -” 2 * “i. . * i « : : . a! . ' / £ Py : ; : ? ° * at. ly > . eX + a. 3 ™— j * ” ‘ | ear ae we. “i ‘ . ad e . a r° Y So” . - f “ . ° > s - erie : : *, * . ! ‘ a 242 ¢i a 2 - 46 US. ©. 761. Riu aalien ; where iad ra brought. — “Whensver the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default oc- * ‘ eurring on the higl seas beyond a marine. -,. league fromthe shore of any State, or the Dis-_ trict of Columbia, or the Territories or depend- encies of the United States, the personal repre- sentative of the decedent may maintain a suit aa damages 1 in the district courts of the United - '. States, in ‘admiralty, for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s wife, husband,* parent, child, or dependent relative against the vessel, person, - ~ or corporation which would have been Tiable if. death had not ensued. + . The Outer Continental Shelf Lands. Agh provides in relevant part: 43 USC. 1332. Congressional. ‘dealdvedion ie ‘policy ; jurisdiction; con- . struction. | “@ It. is declared to be the policy of the © United -States: that the subsoil and seabed of. the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the ~ United States and are subject to its _jurisdic- tion, control, : and power of disposition, as pre _ vided in this subchapter. -.. > (b). This. subchapter shall be construed in’. such, manner that the character as high seas - of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the -right to navigation and fishing | therein shall ‘not be’ affected. - and political jurisdiction éf the United States . State: ‘Provided, however, ‘That mineral leases _ > . the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent — | 3 tee aa 43.U.8.C. 1333, Laws and eens govern: ing .lands—Constitution and United States laws; laws of adjacent States? publication of projected States lines; re- restriction on State — and, jurisdiction. . ~ (a) (1). “The Constitution/ and laws and civil 3 are extended to. the subsoil-and, seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all. artificial ‘ jslands and fixed structures which. may be : erected. thereon for the purpose of exploring . for, devéldping, ‘removing, and transporting resources, therefrom, to the same extent as if -° the outer Continental Shelf were an area of | ~ exclusive Federal jurisdiction located -within a. — on the outer Continental Shelf shall be main- tained or issued only under the Provisions: of this subchapter. . (2) To the-extent iba they_are applicable. . and not inconsistent with this subchapter or _ _ with other Federal laws and regulations of the - Secretary: now in effect or hereafter adopted, State “y of [August 7, 1953] are declared to be. the law\of the United States for that portion of © the subsoil.and seabed: of the Outer Continental. Shelf, and artificial islands and fixed structures _erected thereon, which would be within the area _of the State if its boundaries were exténded | “seaward . to the outer margin of the Outer Con- tinental Shelf, and the President shall deter- — mine and publish inthe Federal Register such - projevied lines extending a and onaing : a 2 ” OS eae ch area. All of viet applicable laws shall: | be administered’ and enforced by the appro- pwate officers and courts of the United States. * a Ae State taxation laws shall ‘not apply. to the Outer i}. STS Continental Shelf. . °° 3 F sere 4 * os * * ee ee Jurisdiction of ‘Uiited States distrioe” era courts. The U: ited States district eourts shall - have original j iction of cases and contro- — Rue _. versiés arising out of or ifi connection with any eae ae operations conducted on the Outer Continental _. a ' Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, develop- ing, removing or transperting by pipeline the © -Gatural. resources, or involving: rights to the ‘- natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of | the Outer Continental Shelf, and proceedings . with respect to any such case or controversy _. may be instituted.in the judicial distrigt in ' which any defendant resides oy may be found, or in the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest oT a nn arose. pie STATEMENT These cases arose out. of fatal accidents occurring on . or adjacent to stationary oil drilling: platforms located ° in the Gulf of Mexico, on the Outer Continental Shelf, ‘more than 25 miles south of the Louisiana coastline. s Petitioner—Dore’s—decedent, an-oil company em- ployee, was operating a crane on the drilling platform — _ which was being used to unload | a barge lying along- — side the platform. While a load was being lifted, the’ crane. toppled over and fell, carrying Mr. Dore some 60 feet to the deck on the barge below, where he was 4 p- " Killed.. Sending: ¥. inks Rel Compara, 21 2a, 6, B72, 0.4 (CA. 5). 05 ve ; Petitiqner: Badtigue’s deutch. an ‘oraployee of, | ai: |” thydraulic testing company, died .of injuries. sustained tim.ia fatl..frdm ‘the top, of an oil @errick to the flopr of an: ‘offshore ee: on which the derrick, had sheen. constructed. | | aim. each: GASe, i aaktumme chia aciecn jai aie . tflet: coiirt under both. the Louisiana Wrongful. Death - - Act and the Death:on the High Seas Act,.and the dis- as _ Aziet equat dismipged the claime based-on the State stat- - sates The.vonrt of appeals held.in Dore. shat .the Death . * s9n, the High Seas Act praxided the exclusive, remedy for the accident, and affirmed in Rodrique. on the au- thority ef Dore. The petition for certiorari, presented the question whether the Death on the High Seas Act affords the exclusive remedy for death on an artificial structure on the’ outer continental shelf, ot—whether, the“ reeovery~ permitted for State-created causes ° of action may also 0 be had. : | : a set nati all the Court..is whether, in the light of its decisions defining the limits; of admiralty jurisdiction and the language and ‘legislative history eer caaben eel Lands Act, the Death on the High Seas Act applies to the accidents involved a in this case.’ As developed in this moran, we — _ Jn holding thist the Death on.the High Seas Act (46 U:S.C. © 761-768) was applicable to the accident in the Dore case, the court. of appeals relied in.-part'‘on its earlier decisions that ‘Congress intended ‘through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331-1343) that federal maritime law should be . i 351-726—69-——--2 Se 4 beli¢ve- that’ the’ ‘question ‘shouldbe ‘answered affirma- ‘tively. Our. analysis, however, has ‘léd-us to-'concludg ‘that the’ déterniifiation whether’ the Death Act 40° ap- - _'pliés ‘also requires ‘vonsideration’ of whether it applied prior’t6 the enadtment of the Outer ae Shelf ‘Lan Act: Met gieetphyy Cifae: cepa } conclusion, set forth i in . Point I, ‘below, ‘is that ; _ * the Oiiter Continental’ Shelf Wands’ ‘Act did not affect, ‘one’ way: or thé other; the applicability of the Death oe --Nbt th adeidents ‘oecarring on platférms oi’ the’ outer — ee __- Sbhtitiental shelf! Tn“du¥ 'vibw; therefore, the question : _ ¥ewhether the ‘Death !Aet- y its * 1 fore’ applies to ‘these-accidénts; in Poirit’ II ‘we' conchide that it” ~ does: Finally, in Point ITI, we anges that it’ would: be ‘gonsistent! ‘with’ the traditional limits. of admiralty jurisdiction tb apply the Death Act to these accidents. IN THE. ‘oun. CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT ,CON- " GRESS DID NOT CHANGE THE COVERAGE OF THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT _ °. The Outer Continental Shelf Tass Act was enacted in 1953 in order to facilitate the prudent extraction of the large sources of oil and 'gas which were sub- merged: _ the nation’ $ shores.* The Act authorizes applied in pave “for injuries OES on platforms located on the continental shelf (A.° 57-59). “Pure Oil Co. v. Snipes, 20% F. 2d 60. (C.A. 5), Ocean Drilling & Enp. Co. v. Berry Brps. Oilfield Service, 377.F. 2d 511 (C.A..5); Loffland Bros. »\ v. Roberts, 386 F. 2d 540 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 389 1040; Movible Offshore Co. v. Ousley, 346 F. 24 870. . f{CA. 5). See H. Rep. No. 418, 88rd’ Cong., lat Sees. - In the 1940’s, several States had undertaken to grant leasing ; iT. : ’ Letghah ty4le | ; ‘ oy meincniia oft -te Sniclleite’ poole nag tions, governing pecestagital and. removal of. termine 1947 ‘whe 5 this Court, penne Pala the paramount aan United States to the natural : resources in the . ontinental ‘shelf, ruled that the States’ were ‘without Fae grant rights to, or authorize extraction of, mimerals on. the shelf even inside the three-mile zone. United States v. California, 332 US. 19, Three years later the preeminent nature + , -of the federal interest if such resources. was reaffirmed. United 7 resources appertaining to the United Stat given to the States. ? gion’ in the Cai Lands Act, 43 U:S. 339 U.S. 1609; ‘United seen Powss, 339 fornia case, Reetam gt erinctanl the Diteceged ; 1301-1315, ceding: all rights in. the sub- | the sev etal States or. their lessees. For that undaries were limited toa distance of three e coast or, in certain circumstances later held to” as to Texas and Florida,.nine miles in the Gulf of Mexico. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands:Act provided for federal administration and leasing of the sfbmerged lands and seaward of those, The continental shelf is the chain red. portion of thé North American continent. extending seaward :from the shoreline. Along the Atlantic ‘Coast: the shelf extends out as much as 250. miles, and about 200 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. The total ' area of the shelf adjacent to coastal states (including Alaska)’ is about 900,000 square miles. The part of the shelf which lies within the belt over which the States were given control under the Submerged Lands Act contains about 30, 000 square miles. The outer continental shelf (outside the area‘ given to\the Statea) ‘is subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act _and_ includes about 97 einer of the total area. - \ — 9. to ean maritime. law, ig, shawn. by. the evolution, of Section, 4(a),. gs is sole ciginch sah. ptieteveh tp, ecAanaber tae tion 4(a). specifically provided that the laws applica-_- ble to United - States vessels, on. the, high. seas, should ih be applied to; acts occurring on offghore ‘platforms. | _ If: the: Congress had enacted that provision, there would belittle doubt thatthe, Death Agt'would apply when fatal injuries were received on a, drilling plat- © ‘form, without’ further inquiry into whether, thé acci- dent otherwise would have been ‘within the sprint ee tort jurisdiction." os ( $ * Congress specified that the Act spplies ee to ‘the hbo and subsoil and the structures erected in’ the’ watefs of the continental shelf. It expressly disclaimed any iritention to. alter | the high seas nature of the water above the shelf, Sr to claim — any jurisdiction over the water itself. “This subchapter shall 3 ‘be construed in such manner that the character as high seas of ,o the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the right. to 2 nev igettin and fahisig, Secpin shall not by flected” {48 U.S.C. . - ” 1882(b)). See S. Rep. No. 411, 83d , 1st Sess, ps2 ‘The original Section 4(a) provided as folinys (S. Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong,, 1st Seas. p--15): 7 “Sec. 4(a). All “acts occurring and- all’ ohinwe committed on any structure’ (other than a vessel), which. is located on the . outer Continental Shelf or on the waters/above the outer *Continental. Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing; or removing the natural resources of-the subsoil or seabed of such outer Continental Shelf, shall be deemed to haye occurred —. © or beer committed aboard, a,.yessel of the United States on, ; _ the high seas and shall be adjudicated and determined or ad- 7 judged and punished according to, the laws relating, to to such acts of offenses occurring on vessels of the United States on | the high seas.” . : Peter Leroux of the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel testified during the committee hearing that the “purpose of this subsection is to make the laws relating to‘ ¢ivil acts and crimi- nal oneane on vessels of the a: States —" to such - " . , i e ° > s . . “na. ° ‘ o..” o. am, i at .* ¥ yz he r - 10 ‘Dutbing the hearings, however, witnesses criticized . the original version of Section 4(a) because it applied - | % only to acts occurring on the offshore structures. and | thus did not cover operations ‘conducted: beneath the wa ter“on the’ seabed" or in the subsoil (see; ¢.g., Hear- ings on S. 1901, fn.°6, supra, at 642-644; S. Rep: Np. 411, supra; at 23), and because the body of maritime | law was too: narrow to provide comprehensive regula- “ tion of the exploitation | of the Outer Continental Shelf. and: to. govern the activities: of those ‘who ‘worked on d ‘arid’ inhabited the offsiore structures (td. -at’ 645-648, ; _ 660,. 663). The extension of maritime law to’ offshore i structures was also specifically criticized as unneces- - Bar ily complicating the resolution of legal disputes (td. at 11, 16, 18-19, 44, 201; 264, 277-278, 645),.Con- . sequently, the Senate Interior Committee recome acts and offenses, occurring on platforms constructed on pilings ; set into the submerged land of the shelf or oit floating plat-.-_ Ps ‘forms i such platforms are not considered to be vessels. Ves-) - sels are excepted liere since these laws are already applicable * to vessels.” Hearings, on S. 1901. before the Senate Committee: on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d: Cong., 1st Sess., Pp we This view was shared by Senator Cordon, the acting chair- man of the committee, who said: e * * * [When these individuals leave their viele and board this structure, they are subject to the law that’ op- . erates on the structure, which in this instance is the same law that operates on board: a ship; but becomes that [%..,. applicable to the structure] only because of this act (td. at 9). _- Senator Cordon concluded that “To bis extent the maritime law ° _ * would apply with respect to the ship, jt will apply with respect’ : _ to the structure” (id. at 10). This interpretatioa_was shared by ‘then Assistant Attorney General Rankin, who viewed the sec- - tion as re to apPly, ritime law to the structures (id. at =) a : Gaees * at ; i. * Oe \ mended:a new Section 4(a), enacted virtually without “ehange, which deleted the ‘referenee ‘to: injuries oc- curing on structures, and instead extended to the outer continental shelf all of the ‘‘Constitution and laws’’. 6f the United States, and, asa supplement to — federal law, the compatible laws of the adjacent States, Bee: p. 8, supra; 8. Rep. No. a; motes at 15; 99 Cong: Ree. 10500. - ‘The subsequent: legislative dietory Go not ie on the revision of Section 4(a) in such a way as to make © the intentior. of the Congress unmistakable. In some. * places, the deleted provision was described. as ‘“‘un- necessary” in light of the decision to extend all federal laws to the outer: shelf. Under this view, the ‘change i -. was intended to broaden the section, but not to eHmi- nate the prior provision making all federal maritime law applicable to the platforms.’ On. the other. hand, several Senators ‘viewed the change as. going further ; . : *As Senator Cordon, the ped chairman of the Interior Committee, —— on the Senate floor Seed — Rec. 6963) — By the use of this \eibtistae approach it became un- necessary to make applicable to the structures, by [ex- © press] ‘Teference * * * either the maritime law or the social laws, as)all those laws, so far as necessary, were made applicable by the extension of the whole body of Federal law tothe area. * ** The Senate. Report similarly . stated (S. Rep. No. 411, overs, "ieee 23) : | ok Section 4a) of the bill as introduced exterided the maritime and admiralty laws of the United States to _-structures used in connection with mineral development on the outer shelf. It is stricken. because the ‘tommittee: determined to extend jurisdiction over the whole of the seabed. ‘and the subsoil, as well as to — _ | they stated. a hae objection Pree the debates that the .revised Section was intended to eliminate an un- wise attempt to extend maritime law to non-maritime ' matters, see 99 ‘Cong. Ree. 7235, (Senator Elletider), 7258 (Senator Daniel), 7261 (Senator Long). Even ' in the absence of. those coniments, however, it. would . be difficult :to diseern an inténtion to extend maritime *. tort jurisdiction to offshore platforms - from legislative proceedings in which the significant feature was the ‘deletion of the language which sought to achieve that result. .Rather, the more reasonable interpretation of ‘the legislative. history is that Congress intended to —+* _ ‘make no change in the existing reach of the Death on ‘ ‘the. High Seas Act, whatever it was. I. “THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT COVERS ACCIDEN TS _ OCCURRING ON OFFSHORE DRILLING PLATFORMS The language of the Death on the High Seas Act is | : .. broad enough to cover accidents occurring on;offshore ‘ ~ 7 dzilling platforms. The Act provides a right of action. ' for death “caused by wrongful act; neglect, or default oceurring on the high seas * * *.’’ Offshore drilling platforms ace completely surrounded by water, are attached to the bottom of the sea, are close to the sur- face of the water, have no-direct physical connection with the shore, and can be reached only by water or air. An accident upon such a platform occurs “on the high seas’’ in much the same sense as one upon a ship traveling upon such seas. Moreover, in some respects these platforms have. the essential attributes of ships. We understand that the platforms ordinarily are floated out. (either as a unit or sometimes in sections). ' to the spot =e are attached to thie bottom ; that 13 ‘ such attachinent often is made iby the lowering of re- ' tractable legs; and that when the drilling at a partic- .wlar site has been completed, the platform is discon- nected. from the bottom — and is floated to a new location. , The question, sieiettine, is wlicther there is any- thing in either the history or purpose of the Death . Act indicating that Congress intended the language. to have a more restricted reach. Both of these fac- ~ tors, as well as\the adverse consequences of holding ~ the Act inapplicable to” ee -ppscieatarnn 2 ea a. negative answer. 1. The Death Act was etiactéd i in Tesporise to the’ need for uniformity in the law governing the right to re- © cover where fatal injuries were wrongfully paralyzing problem of selecting which State death act to apply—the law of ‘State of registry ‘of the dece- ° dent’s vessel, the law of the domicile of the decedent, the law of the domicile of the owner of the decedent’s vessel, or the law of. the State of registry of a tort- _ feasor vessel; and litigants occasionally were denied any remedy because the court applied the’ law of a - _ - State which either did not have a death act, or whose - death act was unavailable because of - its: statute . limitations or some other restriction. ‘ “The Death on the High Seas Act was prompted,.in. a Aarge part, by the desire: to put an end to the uncer=- a tainties attending the application of state statutes to deaths on the high seas. * * * [T]he scope of the Death on the High Seas Act, within the geographical area of its operation, was intended to be as broad as the tradional tort jurisdiction of — admiralty. * * * [T]he purpose. of the Act was to afford.a uniform z right. of. action for ‘death resulting from wrongful aets within the admiralty jurisdiction, excepting state 10 See .Hughes, supra, at 116-117; Magruder and Grout, supra, at 409-423;. Robinson, Wrongful Death in Admiralty . and the Conflict of Laws, 36 Colum. L. Rev. 406 (1936) ; Com- ment, 55, Colum. L. Rev. 907-909 (1955);.S. Rep. No. 216, 66th b sapaigemaricae Keaghexicste habay seed ona i . ee el ol sl ter ritorial waters.” ! Wilson. v, ‘Transocean’ Airlines, 121 F. Supp. 85, 90, 92’ (ND. Calif.)* ab he PY It' was generally agreed at‘the time-the Death Act _ was énacted, and seems to be settled: law today, that maritime ‘tort jurisdiction depends ‘ori the place where — the injury occurs; it applies‘ to all. injuries that: occur upon: navigable weters, ‘even, though maritime mat- ters are not involved in ‘the circumstances of the - injury.” Thus, when Congress: made the Death, Act applieable to wrongful conduct. “occurring on “the high seas,” it neither enlarged ‘nor circumscribed the seope of maritime tort jurisdiction: maritime law’ applied to all injuries.on board a vessel iwhich, at: that time, was the only/ type of injury that occurred on the high-seas. There is no indication, however, that Congress sought to freeze ‘the coverage of the Act. — to maritime structures. as as they were then known, i.e, ships; rather, - it appears that Congress intended to make the Act cover all accidents that would be within © the scope of traditional admiralty tort’ jurisdiction. See D’Aleman v. Pan American World Airways, 259 F. 2d 493,. 495 (C.A. 2), discussed infra, pp. 18-19. Accidents occurring on platforms located ‘on the - Open sea are within that jurisdiction. See, ¢.g., Doullut & Williams Co. v. United’ States, 268 ‘U.S. 33, 35 - (damage - to pilings in the Mississippi River, which | were “‘driven into the bottom of the river and * * * _ completely surrounded by navigable water and * ** 11 The legislative history of the Death Act is set forth i in the Wilson case, 121 F. Supp. at 88-90. 12See generally, Robmson, Tort Jurisdiction in American Admirality, 84 U. Pa. L. Rev. 716, 734-742 (1936); Magruder and Grout, supra, at 401-408 ; ea 55 Colum. 'L. Rev. 907, 918-919. FSET NINN NS ORIOL ORE ER Williams Co. Vv. United States, 268 U. 8. 33; The Raith- moor, 241 U.S. 166; The Blackheath, 195 US. 361; | Atlee % v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389; Hughes, Admiralty (2d Ed. )y § 100. See also the Extension of Admiralty J nrisdietion Act, 46 U.S.C. 740; Gutierrez v. Water- * man 8.8) Corp, 373 U.S. 206, 216, As Mr. Justice . Holmes ‘observed in The Blackheath, 195 U.S. 361, 365, “referring to. a bes con located in the middle of a river and resting on pules driven into.the bottom, -* * * TT]t seems more arbitrary than rational ' to treat attachment to the soil as a peremp- tory -bar outweighing the considerations that ‘the injured ‘thing was * * * no part of the . shore, but surrounded on every side by. water, a . mere point projecting from the sea.“*’ The district,court i in The Poughkeepsie distinguished The Blackheath on ‘the ground that..Mr. Justice, Holmes’ description of the beacon as an ‘‘aid to:navi- — - gation’’ was an independent test for admiralty juris- diction over offshore structures, which ‘was not satis- fied by the drilling operation in that case. Although the ‘‘aid- to-navigation” inquiry appears to have been at beyond its’ original ‘significance * and ‘ %4The beacon “is only technically land, through a connection - at the botto of the sea. In such a case [maritime] jurisdiction ‘may’ be. taken’ without transcending the limits of the Constitu-— tion *.* *.” 195 U.S. 361, 367-368. See concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brown, 195 US.” at, 368-369: “The distinction be- tweeh damage done to fixed and to floating structures is a: some- what artificial one, and, in my view, founded upon no sound principle.”. -8Tri The Blackheath itself, Mr. Justice olen cited with ap- proval The Arkansas, 17 Fed. 383 (S.D. Iowa), which had also — adopted the distinction. between structures contiguous with ad eo: ¢ ncreased the number ‘of ERpeancae dis-- os 4 23. tinetions ; in the maritime law,"* the offshore: platforms | involved here may’ reasonably be found to. satisfy : -that requiremént, if applicable. Unlike the danger- _ ous impediment to riavigation involved in The Pough- keepste, offshore oil drilling platforms undoubtedly provide some incidental assistance to navigators in ¥ fixing their positions. Moreover, maritime navigation — is extensively involved in offshore drilling operations - because the platforms are accessible, — for heli- es copter flights, only by boat. . It also may be argued that thg_ rules devtaped & in the’ Cleveland Terminal line of cases are not eon- - .clusive on the question whether maritime law applies 7 to. personal injury actions arising on offshore struc- tures. Whatever policies may have justified the denial of admiralty reniedies to the owner of a pier or bridge ' which * was damaged by a vessel—an inquiry of only historical significance since that rule was abrogated by the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act—it would not necessarily follow that the same narrow view of admiralty jurisdiction is justified in eases ; where the issues invelve personal safety and the loss of earning capacity or support. In this situation, the: shore and those surrounded by water. The Arkansas, however, was not concerned with a structure which aided navigation, ‘but with an isolated oil storage depot in the middle of the ~ Mississippi River. Similarly, in Atlee, supra, this Court, ap- plying the admirelty jurisdiction to a storage pier located in the middle of a river, expressly recognized that the pier was.in ~ no way an aid to navigation (21 Walt. at i 598); ‘See, he Raith- : moor, supra. ** Compare The Panoil, 266 U.S. 433, . with Doullut & Wi- - - tiams Co. v.. United States, 268° U.S. 33; see Robinson, Zort Jurisdiction in American Admiralty, “ U: Pa. L. Rev. 716, 718-726 (1986). . ce | a - courts may satiate take account of the fact ‘that workmen on offshore platforms frequently are ex- posed to some of the same-hazards of the sea which ’ characterize employment aboard a vessel. See Pure . Oil Co. v. sic 293 F. 2d 60 (C.A. 5). "CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the question framed. by the Court in its order of April 2 should be answered 7: . affirmatively, = = pesca submitted. | * ERWIN N. Grisw OLD, Solicitor General. Wim D. RUCKELSHAUS, Assistant Attorney General. | ) | - | Morton’ HobLaNDER, one ee _ Rosert M. Here, ; 5 ro | ee Attorneys. May 1969. - 4 a Fd U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0114%3A10. Public record. Not legal advice.