On November 21, 1998, Hong Quy Vo, Scott Vo, Vihn Pham, and Lien Tran left Tybee Island, Georgia on a recreational fishing trip. The four men traveled in Tran’s 19-foot Cobia boat to a Navy tower located approximately 25 miles offshore. The boat capsized, and Lien Tran, Hong Quy Vo, and Scott Vo died. Phouc Thi Kim Vo, individually and as administratrix for Tran’s estate, and Tin Vo, individually and as administrator of Hong Quy Vo’s estate, sued Yamaha Golf Car Company, C & C Manufacturing Company, and Coastmarine, Inc., among others, for damages arising out of Tran’s death and Hong Quy Vo’s death. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Yamaha, C&C, and Coastmarine.1 Phouc Thi Kim Vo and Tin Vo filed separate appeals from the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment, and we have consolidated the appeals because the controlling facts and issues are the same.2 Phouc Thi Kim Vo and Tin Vo claim that the trial court erred in i granting summary judgment to Yamaha, C&C, and Coastmarine on their claims for the injuries and conscious pain and suffering of the deceased as provided by OCGA § 9-2-41, and ii ruling that state courts are prohibited by the Death on the High Seas Act “DOHSA”3 from allowing other state law based claims when damages in wrongful death are controlled by DOHSA. Indeed, intuitively the Vos’ claim sounds correct, that state law remedies should run parallel to, not be excluded by, DOHSA remedies. However, since the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co. ,4 that is not the case. We are constrained to affirm the judgment of the trial court because, based on Dooley and subsequent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, DOHSA pre-empts the appellants’ actions for injuries, and pain and suffering based on state law.
To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.5 Our review is de novo.6
