Garris v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp.

Citations: 215 F.3d 420; 2000 WL 726787Docket: No. 98-2368

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; June 2, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Dissent SummaryDissent OriginalRehearing AnalysisRehearing Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Circuit Judge Widener dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the case presents important issues of first impression. He contends that the panel opinion relies heavily on Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., which addressed inconsistencies between the Death on the High Seas Act and state wrongful death statutes. The Supreme Court in Moragne found that Congress did not intend to limit non-statutory federal remedies that align with general maritime law, allowing wrongful death claims for longshoremen based on vessel unseaworthiness, a principle initially established in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki.

Widener highlights that subsequent amendments to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act in 1972, particularly the introduction of 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), explicitly removed the right of longshoremen and harbor workers to claim unseaworthiness against vessels. The legislative history of these amendments rejected Sieracki's absolute duty of seaworthiness for longshoremen, indicating that Congress aimed to equate the rights of injured maritime workers with those of non-maritime workers.

Widener argues that the panel opinion misapplies Moragne by creating a new maritime liability theory contrary to Congress's intent, providing maritime workers with rights not available to their land-based counterparts. He emphasizes that it is the role of Congress, not the court, to shape policy, and that the judiciary's function is to enforce congressional enactments. The dissent asserts that the judicial system should not impose its policy views over explicit congressional intent, as highlighted in previous Supreme Court cases.