## Facts

- A seaman died by drowning while working on his employer’s vessel docked in Ohio territorial waters.
- The estate’s administratrix filed suit in federal district court asserting wrongful-death and survival-type claims.
- The complaint sought wrongful-death damages for the mother and dependent siblings based on: (i) negligence under the Jones Act, and (ii) unseaworthiness under general maritime law combined with an Ohio wrongful-death statute.
- The complaint also sought estate recovery for the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering, relying on the Jones Act and general maritime law with asserted survival under the Jones Act and an Ohio survival statute.
- The district court granted a motion to strike, limiting the action to a Jones Act negligence wrongful-death theory and eliminating claims asserted for the benefit of the dependent siblings while the mother survived.
- No final judgment on liability or damages was entered; the case otherwise could have proceeded to trial on the narrowed Jones Act theory.
- The court of appeals entertained review despite questions about finality and affirmed the district court’s limiting order.

## Issues

1. Whether an order striking substantial theories of recovery and excluding alleged beneficiaries, without entering judgment on the merits, is appealable as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Whether the Jones Act provides the exclusive wrongful-death remedy for a seaman killed in the territorial waters of a state in the course of employment, superseding otherwise applicable state wrongful-death statutes and related maritime theories for wrongful death.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the striking order appealable under § 1291, applying a practical construction of finality in light of the order’s importance to the conduct of the case and the risk of injustice from delay.
- On the merits, the Court held that the Jones Act negligence action is the exclusive right of action for wrongful death of a seaman killed in state territorial waters in the course of employment, superseding otherwise applicable state death statutes.
- The Court’s disposition left the plaintiff to proceed, if at all, under the Jones Act wrongful-death framework and its statutory beneficiary limits.

## Legal Principles

- Finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 may be assessed pragmatically rather than mechanically when an order resolves questions fundamental to the further conduct of the case and postponing review could cause serious unfairness.
- In deciding whether to permit immediate review in close cases, courts weigh the costs of piecemeal appeals against the risk that delay will deny justice.
- For a seaman killed in a state’s territorial waters in the course of employment, the Jones Act provides the exclusive wrongful-death remedy, displacing state wrongful-death statutes that would expand theories of liability or beneficiaries.
- When the Jones Act governs wrongful death, its statutory beneficiary scheme controls entitlement to recover.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted immediate appellate review of a nonterminal order because it effectively determined core claims and beneficiaries, and it held that the Jones Act exclusively governs wrongful-death recovery for seamen killed in state territorial waters during employment, superseding state wrongful-death remedies and limiting beneficiaries to those recognized by the Act.


Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964)