DOSHA Applies to Jet-Ski Accident in Bahamian Waters

SandBar Printer-Friendly Article
SandBar 6:4, January, 2008 DOSHA Applies to Jet-Ski Accident in Bahamian Waters Mellor v. Moe, 2007 WL 2883784 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007). *Sarah Spigener, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law* The Southern District Court of Florida has held that the operators of a 30-foot fishing boat and a jet-ski were equally at fault for a collision that fatally injured the driver of the jet-ski. The court concluded that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOSHA) applied to the collision since it occurred in Bahamian waters and awarded damages to the victim’s parents. Background The Mellor family took a cruise from Florida to the Bahamas in August 2003. On the day of the accident, the family arrived on a beach from an excursion ferry. While on the beach, Jason Mellor, his brother John Mellor, and Shannon Mitchell rented jet-skis. With Shannon as a passenger on Jason’s jet-ski, they departed the beach. At that time, the weather was turning darker and a rain storm was approaching. Jason and Shannon briefly stopped to wipe their glasses and when Jason started driving again, Shannon saw a boat traveling towards them. John briefly saw the boat when it was about 100 feet away and again about 2 to 3 seconds before it collided with Jason’s jet-ski. The driver of the boat testified that he did not see the jet-skis until impact, but the passenger in the boat testified he saw the jet-ski a “split-second” before impact. Jason Mellor was fatally injured in the collision. His parents brought an action against the driver of the boat pursuant to DOSHA to recover damages. DOSHA Claim The plaintiffs, Jason’s parents, contended that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to DOSHA because the incident occurred on the high seas. The defendant, the driver of the boat, argued that the collision occurred in Bahamian waters, not the high seas, and DOSHA should not apply. DOSHA does not include a definition of “high seas” so the court examined prior cases to determine its meaning. In a similar case, the court held that a negligence action filed by the estate of a cruise ship passenger who suffered a heart attack while snorkeling in Mexican waters was covered under DOSHA.1 The court of appeals, in yet another case, stated that DOSHA applied when the cause of action arose within the territorial waters of a foreign country.2 Finally, in a third case, the court of appeals concluded that DOSHA applied to a death in the Bahamas.3 Because the death occurred in Bahamian waters, the court concluded that DOSHA applied to this case. In order for the court to apply DOSHA to this case, the court must first have admiralty jurisdiction. To determine admiralty jurisdiction, the court must decide whether the cause of action bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. The court, in the snorkeling case mentioned above, concluded that “the significant relationship test was met because the decedent was a paying passenger aboard a cruise ship sailing from Florida to Mexico which arranged maritime recreational activities for its passengers.”4 Because the only difference between the two cases was that the cruise ship was included as one of the defendants, the court concluded that the significant relationship test would also be satisfied in this case thereby giving the court admiralty jurisdiction. DOSHA allows the decedent’s parents to seek a claim for compensation of the pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the decedent’s death. In order to apply DOSHA, the court must determine the comparative negligence of the defendant and the decedent. The parties cited two different rules that they claimed should be the controlling standard to determine comparative negligence. The court concluded that the jet-skis did have the right of way, but according to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), should have taken action to avoid the collision. The court concluded that the boat and the jet-ski equally caused the accident; therefore, the decedent’s comparative negligence is 50 percent. Next, the court must de termine the amount of damages the plaintiffs should receive. DOSHA damages are “limited to fair compensation for the pecuniary damages of the parents of Jason Mellor.”5 The court determined that the services Jason performed, such as mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, walking the dogs, and driving his brother various places is compensable. The court determined that these services constituted six hours of work per week at a rate of $18.50 an hour. Also, the costs of the decedent’s funeral and burial arrangements could be compensated. The court awarded damages to the parents for the 26.5 years of their life expectancy plus the cost of the funeral and burial, reduced by 50 percent for comparative negligence, for a total of $83,877.08. Conclusion The court concluded that the drivers of the boat and of the jet-ski were equally at fault for the collision that occurred in Bahamian waters. The court concluded that it had admiralty jurisdiction for an accident that occurred in foreign territorial waters. The court determined that the parents of the decedent were entitled to compensation for the pecuniary loss of the decedent’s services and for the funeral and burial arrangements, minus the amount of the decedent’s comparative negligence. Endnotes 1. Moyer v. Rederi, 645 F.Supp. 620 (S.D. Fla. 1986). 2. Sanchez v. Loffland Bros. Co., 626 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1980). This case is binding on this court because the court was part of the Fifth Circuit until 1981. 3. Ford v. Wooten, 681 F.2d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 1982). 4. Mellor v. Moe, 2007 WL 2883784 at 4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007); citing, Moyer, 645 F.Supp. at 624-25. 5. Id. at 6.
Phone (662) 915-7775 • Fax (662) 915-5267 • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E, University, MS 38677-1848

SandBar 6:4, January, 2008

Mellor v. Moe, 2007 WL 2883784 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007).

Sarah Spigener, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law

The Southern District Court of Florida has held that the operators of a 30-foot fishing boat and a jet-ski were equally at fault for a collision that fatally injured the driver of the jet-ski. The court concluded that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOSHA) applied to the collision since it occurred in Bahamian waters and awarded damages to the victim’s parents.

Background
The Mellor family took a cruise from Florida to the Bahamas in August 2003. On the day of the accident, the family arrived on a beach from an excursion ferry. While on the beach, Jason Mellor, his brother John Mellor, and Shannon Mitchell rented jet-skis. With Shannon as a passenger on Jason’s jet-ski, they departed the beach. At that time, the weather was turning darker and a rain storm was approaching. Jason and Shannon briefly stopped to wipe their glasses and when Jason

started driving again, Shannon saw a boat traveling towards them. John briefly saw the boat when it was about 100 feet away and again about 2 to 3 seconds before it collided with Jason’s jet-ski. The driver of the boat testified that he did not see the jet-skis until impact, but the passenger in the boat testified he saw the jet-ski a “split-second” before impact. Jason Mellor was fatally injured in the collision. His parents brought an action against the driver of the boat pursuant to DOSHA to recover damages.

DOSHA Claim
The plaintiffs, Jason’s parents, contended that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to DOSHA because the incident occurred on the high seas. The defendant, the driver of the boat, argued that the collision occurred in Bahamian waters, not the high seas, and DOSHA should not apply. DOSHA does not include a definition of “high seas” so the court examined prior cases to determine its meaning. In a similar case, the court held that a negligence action filed by the estate of a cruise ship passenger who suffered a heart attack while snorkeling in Mexican waters was covered under DOSHA.1 The court of appeals, in yet another case, stated that DOSHA applied when the cause of action arose within the territorial waters of a foreign country.2 Finally, in a third case, the court of appeals concluded that DOSHA applied to a death in the Bahamas.3 Because the death occurred in Bahamian waters, the court concluded that DOSHA applied to this case.
     In order for the court to apply DOSHA to this case, the court must first have admiralty jurisdiction. To determine admiralty jurisdiction, the court must decide whether the cause of action bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. The court, in the snorkeling case mentioned above, concluded that “the significant relationship test was met because the decedent was a paying passenger aboard a cruise ship sailing from Florida to Mexico which arranged maritime recreational activities for its passengers.”4 Because the only difference between the two cases was that the cruise ship was included as one of the defendants, the court concluded that the significant relationship test would also be satisfied in this case thereby giving the court admiralty jurisdiction.
      DOSHA allows the decedent’s parents to seek a claim for compensation of the pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the decedent’s death. In order to apply DOSHA, the court must determine the comparative negligence of the defendant and the decedent. The parties cited two different rules that they claimed should be the controlling standard to determine comparative negligence. The court concluded that the jet-skis did have the right of way, but according to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), should have taken action to avoid the collision. The court concluded that the boat and the jet-ski equally caused the accident; therefore, the decedent’s comparative negligence is 50 percent.
      Next, the court must de termine the amount of damages the plaintiffs should receive. DOSHA damages are “limited to fair compensation for the pecuniary damages of the parents of Jason Mellor.”5 The court determined that the services Jason performed, such as mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, walking the dogs, and driving his brother various places is compensable. The court determined that these services constituted six hours of work per week at a rate of $18.50 an hour. Also, the costs of the decedent’s funeral and burial arrangements could be compensated. The court awarded damages to the parents for the 26.5 years of their life expectancy plus the cost of the funeral and burial, reduced by 50 percent for comparative negligence, for a total of $83,877.08.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the drivers of the boat and of the jet-ski were equally at fault for the collision that occurred in Bahamian waters. The court concluded that it had admiralty jurisdiction for an accident that occurred in foreign territorial waters. The court determined that the parents of the decedent were entitled to compensation for the pecuniary loss of the decedent’s services and for the funeral and burial arrangements, minus the amount of the decedent’s comparative negligence.

Endnotes
1. Moyer v. Rederi, 645 F.Supp. 620 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
2. Sanchez v. Loffland Bros. Co., 626 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1980). This case is binding on this court because the court was part of the Fifth Circuit until 1981.
3. Ford v. Wooten, 681 F.2d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 1982).
4. Mellor v. Moe, 2007 WL 2883784 at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007); citing, Moyer, 645 F.Supp. at 624-25.
5. Id. at *6.