Statute immunized the defendant from liability for negligence, having already held that the defendant was not negligent under the applicable standard of care and that the decedents were the proximate cause of their own deaths. However, the Sixth Circuit’s willingness to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligence claims perhaps lends credence to the court’s holding today. Further, the court’s holding is consistent with other language in Pearce, rejecting the plaintiffs arguments that state law should apply “in analyzing the SIAA,” and instead holding that “general admiralty law, not state law, governs claims resulting from maritime deaths in territorial waters.” Id. at 647; see also Brotherhood Shipping Co., Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 985 F.2d 323, 325 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The' defendant seeks to apply a Tennessee law
holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that the obviousness of a danger is a factor for comparative negligence not a bar to recovery holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well