Breach Of Contract Of Carriage

54 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Leather's Best, Inc. v. S.S. Mormaclynx
  451 F.2d 800· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-29 ·cited 176×
  The dissent argues that a liability limitation valid under the Harter Act, after cargo discharge, should not be deemed invalid simply because it was void under COGSA while the cargo was on board.
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. SS Hong Kong Producer
  422 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-30 ·cited 76×
  The dissenting judge argues that the shipper's agent had a duty to examine the bill of lading, and the containers should be considered the 'packages' for the $500 limitation under COGSA.
• Compagnie De Navigation Fraissinet & Cyprien Fabre v. Mondial United Corp.
  316 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the carrier failed to prove damage was due to excepted causes and that the libelant had standing to recover. The court also affirmed the in rem liability of the vessel.
• Tessler Bros. (B.C.) Ltd. v. Italpacific Line & Matson Terminals, Inc.
  494 F.2d 438· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 45×
  A bill of lading's Himalaya clause, which extends the carrier's rights and limitations of liability to its agents and independent contractors, can validly limit a stevedore's liability, provided the intent is clearly expressed.
• Komatsu, Ltd. v. States S.S. Co. & Am. President Lines, Ltd.
  674 F.2d 806· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 38×
  Incorporating COGSA by reference in a bill of lading or tariff does not, by itself, provide a shipper with prima facie evidence of a 'fair opportunity' to declare a higher value and avoid the $500 package limitation.
• Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Theodora Edwards
  336 So. 2d 545· Fla.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 35×
  A passenger seeks damages from an airline for injuries allegedly caused by consuming Cuban food during a hijacking to Cuba. The Florida Supreme Court holds that the damages are too remote as a matter of law to be recoverable, reversing the appellate court's decision that had allo
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Peters
  77 Fla. 411· Fla.· 1919-04-17 ·cited 34×
  Florida East Coast Railway Company appealed a judgment for special damages awarded to Peters, a tomato farmer, for the railway's negligent delay in transporting crate material needed for harvesting and shipping his crop. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding th
• Spartus Corp. v. The S/S Yafo
  590 F.2d 1310· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-07 ·cited 32×
  An unreasonable geographic deviation by a carrier breaches the contract of carriage, rendering the COGSA $500 per-package limitation inapplicable. Furthermore, clock movements are not 'watches, clocks, or timepieces of any description' for the purposes of the Limitation of Liabil
• Butts v. Cnty. OF Dade
  178 So. 2d 592· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-09-28 ·cited 32×
  A paying passenger injured on a Dade County bus sued for damages from a negligent collision. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on sovereign immunity and statutory notice requirements. The appellate court reversed, holding that counties operating proprietary business f
• Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Newtowne MFG. Co.
  187 F.2d 675· 1st Cir.· 1951-03-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the shipper's failure to file a written claim with the carrier, as required by the bill of lading, barred recovery from the carrier, and that the insurance policy covered the loss because it occurred after the goods were delivered into the custody of a public
• Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., S.A.
  475 So. 2d 248· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-07-23 ·cited 31×
  Cruise ship passengers were ambushed and shot while visiting a beach in Nassau following directions from ship personnel. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that cruise lines owe passengers a duty to warn of known dangers at port destinations, even beyond the ship itself
• Cardenas v. Miami-Dade Yellow CAB Co.
  538 So. 2d 491· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-01-31 ·cited 30×
  Daniel and Hilda Cardenas sued Yellow Cab after Daniel's foot was run over by a taxi wheel during a disputed return to a condominium. The jury found Yellow Cab liable for false imprisonment, negligence, and breach of contract of carriage, awarding $645,000 in damages. On consolid
• Am. Synthetic Rubber Corp. & Am. Rubber & Chem. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  422 F.2d 462· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge believes the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the facts of this case.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Dexter
  50 Fla. 180· Fla.· 1905-06-01 ·cited 30×
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad appealed a jury verdict for damages to livestock shipped under a contract limiting carrier liability to $75 per head. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the shipper failed to prove the railroad caused the injury, that burden of proof res
• Aunt MID, Inc. v. Fjell-Oranje Lines
  458 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1972-02-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the shipper bore the risk of loss for spoiled cabbages when they elected to ship in ventilated stowage instead of refrigeration, despite conflicting expert testimony.
• Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. United States
  512 F.2d 1196· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the carrier's stops at Norfolk and Brooklyn for additional cargo constituted a voluntary unreasonable deviation, entitling the government to recover prepaid freight and additional costs.
• Stires v. Carnival Corp.
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1313· M.D. Fla.· 2002-11-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while some claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing amendment, others were dismissed with prejudice, and punitive damages and attorney's fees were not recoverable under maritime law as pleaded.
• Du Pont de Nemours Int'l S.A. v. Mormacvega
  493 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-07 ·cited 22×
  On-deck stowage of a container on a vessel specially reconstructed for such carriage, absent contrary agreement or custom, does not constitute an unreasonable deviation that deprives the carrier of its COGSA limitation of liability.
• Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang JIN
  747 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 20×
  An order requiring counter-security for counterclaims of wrongful seizure or abuse of process is not appealable under the Cohen doctrine or as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because such claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original libel.
• Pioneer Imp. Corp. v. THE Lafcomo
  138 F.2d 907· 2d Cir.· 1943-11-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the vessel and operator were liable for cargo damage due to negligent stowage, and the operator must bear the entire loss as between themselves.
• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
  761 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of a formal default judgment against defaulting parties did not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act correctly mandates non-jury trials in suits against foreign states.
• Schiess-Froriep Corp. v. Finnsailor
  574 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding when and how the damage occurred and Universal's status when loading the truck.
• Doe v. Celebrity Cruises
  145 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-26 ·cited 14×
  A ship owner can be held vicariously liable for an employee's intentional torts against a passenger, even if outside the scope of employment, under maritime law and Florida exception for common carriers. However, claims for medical negligence, failure to investigate, and breach o
• Gen. Elec. Co. Int'l Sales Div. v. S.S. Nancy Lykes
  706 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 14×
  An unreasonable deviation from the contracted voyage deprives the carrier of the liability limitation provided by COGSA Section 4(5), even if the bill of lading contains a liberties clause or modern insurance covers deviation risks.
• Fawley Motor Lines v. Cavalier Poultry Corp.
  235 F.2d 416· 4th Cir.· 1956-06-21 ·cited 12×
  A common carrier is bound by its filed tariffs, even when transporting agricultural commodities, and is liable for charges collected in excess of those tariffs. The shipper is entitled to interest on the overcharges from the time of payment.
• B.M.A. Indus., Ltd. v. Nigerian Star Line, Ltd.
  786 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that misdelivery of cargo, even if due to bribery, does not constitute a deviation that deprives the carrier of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) liability limitations.
• Aultman v. Atl. Coast Line R. R. Co.
  71 Fla. 276· Fla.· 1916-03-01 ·cited 10×
  This case involves a lawsuit by S. B. Aultman against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for damages due to unreasonable delay and improper handling of perishable goods. The court reversed the lower court's decision to sustain the railroad's demurrer, finding the declaratio
• Fornel v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  65 Fla. 102· Fla.· 1913-02-04 ·cited 10×
  Fornel sued the Florida East Coast Railway Company for damages caused by unreasonable delay in transporting six carloads of tomatoes from Lemon City to Chicago. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the declaration and struck portions seeking interest and attorney's fees under
• Jackson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  203 F. Supp. 2d 1367· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-21 ·cited 9×
  The court granted summary judgment for Carnival Cruise Lines, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding negligent hiring, breach of contract, or failure to warn.
• Florida East Coast Railway v. Ersula J. Wade
  53 Fla. 620· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against the Florida East Coast Railway, finding that the railroad company was not liable for injuries suffered by a passenger who disembarked from a moving train at the wrong station. The court held that even assuming the conductor's
• Carman Tool & Abrasives, Inc. v. Evergreen Lines
  871 F.2d 897· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 8×
  A carrier is not required to give actual notice of COGSA's package liability limitation to all parties with an economic interest in the goods, as long as the bill of lading provides fair opportunity to opt for higher liability.
• Cavcar Co. v. M/V Suzdal
  723 F.2d 1096· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 8×
  A vessel may be liable in rem for breach of the contract of carriage, even if the shipowner is not personally liable, if the vessel's departure with the cargo constitutes ratification of the bill of lading.
• AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  721 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The Carmack Amendment provides an exclusive remedy for foreseeable damages resulting from a carrier's misdelivery of cargo, even if no bill of lading was issued for the misdelivered item itself, as long as a contract of carriage existed for other deliveries.
• Instituto Cubano de Estabilizacion del Azucar v. T/V Golden West
  246 F.2d 802· 2d Cir.· 1957-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the vessel owner was not obligated to arbitrate a dispute because it was not a party to the charter-party containing the arbitration clause, and affirmed the dismissal of the libel as time-barred.
• Polar S.S. Corp. v. Inland Overseas S.S. Corp.
  136 F.2d 835· 4th Cir.· 1943-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Polar breached the bareboat charter party by refusing to deliver the vessel, and that damages for lost profits were recoverable to the extent they could be proven with reasonable certainty.
• Constructores Tecnicos v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  945 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a clean bill of lading creates a presumption of below-deck stowage, and on-deck stowage without shipper consent is an unreasonable deviation under COGSA, stripping the carrier of liability limitations. The court also held that a non-settling defendant is entit
• Hammers v. S. Express Co.
  80 Fla. 51· Fla.· 1920-06-12 ·cited 6×
  R.C. Hammers sued Southern Express Company for failure to deliver a shipment of medicine (morphine and cocaine) from Tampa to New York and to collect payment. The carrier pleaded that the goods were lawfully seized by federal officers as evidence of the plaintiff's violation of f
• The S. Fla. R.R. Co. v. Rhodes
  25 Fla. 40· Fla.· 1889-01-01 ·cited 6×
  South Florida Railroad Company appealed a jury verdict awarding Rhodes $5,000 damages for forcible ejection from a train. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the reasonableness of railroad rules is a matter of law for courts, not juries, and that the jury verdict was
• Crump v. Thompson
  171 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' own negligence in creating a hazardous fire condition and storing cotton bales near an inflammable refuse pile was the sole proximate cause of the fire, relieving the defendant carrier of liability.
• Nadeau v. Costley
  634 So. 2d 649· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-01-12 ·cited 4×
  Carol Nadeau appeals a summary judgment dismissing her claims against cruise line Carnival and Captain Los arising from a sexual assault by crew member Costley in her cabin. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed as to Carnival on breach of contract and vicarious liability
• P & E Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana Exportadora E Importadora de Alimentos
  335 F.2d 678· 1st Cir.· 1964-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the carrier failed to prove the reasonableness of its deviation from the contracted voyage, thus breaching the contract of carriage.
• Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Brother's Trucking Enters., Inc.
  373 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Salem Logistics, Inc. acted as a motor carrier or a broker, and whether its conduct constituted negligence or breach of contract, thus denying summary judgment.
• Hall v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  888 So. 2d 654· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-07-21 ·cited 3×
  A cruise ship passenger injured after falling down stairs while intoxicated sued Royal Caribbean for breach of its duty to exercise reasonable care. The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that maritime law imposes a duty on cruise operators to avoid overservin
• Alvarez v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  378 So. 2d 1317· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-15 ·cited 3×
  Mercedes Alvarez, a paying passenger on a Metropolitan Dade County bus, was attacked by an unknown assailant at a location where prior assaults had occurred. She sued the County for breach of contract and negligence as a common carrier. The court affirmed the trial court's judgme
• Complaint of Singapore Navigation Co. v. Mego Corp.
  540 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court should hold that discharging cargo at Detroit was not an unreasonable deviation.
• Jefferson Chem. Co., Inc. v. M/T Grena and her owners
  413 F.2d 864· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract of carriage was a contract of affreightment subject to COGSA, invalidating the shipowner's exoneration clause and making them liable for seawater damage, but not for damage due to the cargo's inherent characteristics.
• Pesquera Navimar, S.A. v. Ecuatoriana De Aviacion
  680 F. Supp. 1526· S.D. Fla.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 1×
  A notation on an air waybill stating that frozen shrimp arrived soft and wet at a specific temperature, and that the agent was not responsible for damages, is sufficient written notice under Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention.
• Shell OIL Co. v. M/T Gilda
  790 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) governed the contract of carriage, including its burden of proof provisions, and that the carrier failed to prove the loss was due to inherent vice or an exception under COGSA.
• Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
  287 F. Supp. 2d 1321· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-23
  Jane Doe sued Celebrity Cruises and related defendants for vicarious liability for sexual battery committed by crew member Baris Aydin, relying on a prior ruling that common carriers may be held strictly liable for employees' intentional torts outside the scope of employment. The
• Boehnen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  778 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-03-07
  Vivian and Tonya Boehnen appeal the dismissal of their maritime personal injury suit arising from sexual assault during a cruise. The court reverses, holding that a mentally incompetent person without a legal guardian is protected by federal maritime law and may bring suit within