Contract Of Carriage

116 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.
• Mr. and Mrs. A. T. Stanga v. McCORMICK Shipping Corp.
  268 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-25 ·cited 55×
  Service of process on a local travel agency that booked passage for a foreign steamship company is insufficient if the agency is not an agent or employee acting within the scope of authority for business activities within the state. However, a final dismissal is improper if other
• Calmaquip Eng'g W. Hemisphere Corp. v. W. Coast Carriers Ltd.
  650 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 52×
  A carrier's on-deck storage of cargo, contrary to express instructions for below-deck stowage, constitutes a material deviation under COGSA, making the carrier liable as an insurer for the full amount of the damage.
• Bates Block v. Compagnie Nationale AIR France
  386 F.2d 323· 5th Cir.· 1967-11-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention applies to charter flights, limiting liability.
• Lichten v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  189 F.2d 939· 2d Cir.· 1951-05-22 ·cited 52×
  A tariff provision filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board, exempting an air carrier from liability for loss of jewelry, is valid and enforceable, even if it conflicts with common law principles regarding carrier negligence.
• Jansson v. Swedish Am. Line
  185 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1950-11-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the validity and binding effect of the one-year contractual limitation on suit must be determined by Swedish law, not American law, because the contract was made in Sweden and the injury occurred in Swedish waters.
• Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc.
  538 So. 2d 55· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-01-20 ·cited 46×
  Roland Roberts appealed the denial of his workers' compensation claim after being injured while unloading a trailer for Gator Freightways, Inc. The court affirmed that Roberts was not a direct employee of Gator, but reversed and remanded because Gator was a statutory employer und
• 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.
• Ciro Silvestri v. Italia Societa PER Azioni DI Navigazione
  388 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-04 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the steamship company's ticket did not sufficiently incorporate its conditions to bar the passenger's claim, as the notice was not reasonably conspicuous.
• The Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co. v. M/V Bodena
  829 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a carrier cannot unilaterally alter a bill of lading to impose on-deck stowage after the contract of carriage was formed, and that a "clean" bill of lading implies under-deck stowage by custom.
• 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.
• United States v. Associated AIR Transp., Inc.
  275 F.2d 827· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-08 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the contract of carriage, specifically the bid, controls the calculation of ferry miles, not the actual miles flown if they differ.
• Carpenter v. Klosters Rederi A/S
  604 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a one-year suit time limitation on a cruise ticket, prominently displayed and incorporated by reference, is binding on the passenger, barring a later suit filed after that period.
• Tishman & Lipp, Inc. v. DELTA AIR Lines
  413 F.2d 1401· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-31 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the airline's filed tariffs, which excluded liability for jewelry shipped as baggage, governed the loss, and the passenger's failure to declare the jewelry's value precluded recovery.
• 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.
• Barbachym v. Costa Line, Inc.
  713 F.2d 216· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the carrier failed to provide reasonable notice of the contract's limitations period, and therefore the plaintiffs were not bound by it.
• 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.
• Son Shipping Co., Inc. v. DE Fosse & Tanghe
  199 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1952-11-12 ·cited 20×
  An arbitration clause in a charter party, incorporated by reference into bills of lading, is enforceable against a cargo purchaser who received the bills of lading.
• 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.
• Deiro v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  816 F.2d 1360· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 17×
  A common carrier's liability limitation in a passenger ticket is contractually binding if the ticket reasonably communicates the existence of important terms and conditions, and the passenger had a fair opportunity to declare a higher value.
• EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd.
  745 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a defendant who meets the stringent burden of proof under COGSA's 'q clause' exemption necessarily establishes freedom from fault under general maritime law and the Limitation of Liability Act.
• 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
• The ST. Paul Ins. Co. OF Ill. v. Venezuelan Int'l Airways, Inc.
  807 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a validly filed tariff, which imposed a shorter notice period for claims than the air waybill, controlled the contract of carriage, and thus the plaintiff's notice was untimely.
• Pac. Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. The M/V Gloria
  767 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the vessel for an in rem judgment and vacated that judgment, but affirmed the personal liability of the charterer and owner under COGSA. The court also vacated the dismissal of a third-party claim against Greenwich.
• 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.
• O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc. v. Beckham
  616 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Coffee's liability for freight charges.
• LA Salle Mach. Tool, Inc. v. Maher Terminals, Inc.
  611 F.2d 56· 4th Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 14×
  A terminal operator's liability is not limited by a carrier's bill of lading or a filed tariff unless the shipper has clear notice and agreement, especially when the operator is an independent contractor not clearly covered by the terms.
• Gore v. Ne. Airlines, Inc.
  373 F.2d 717· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that New York's public policy against damage limitations in wrongful death actions, rather than the Massachusetts statute's limitation, applies, and that the beneficiaries' domicile at the time of death, not later, is controlling.
• Barkanic v. Gen. Admin. OF Civil Aviation OF the Peoples Republic OF China
  822 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the wrongful death action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, finding a sufficient nexus between the airline's commercial activities in the U.S. and the decedents' claims.
• 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.
• The Madow Co. v. S.S. Liberty Exp. (now called S.S. Oceanic REX)
  569 F.2d 1183· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the last carrier, Ta Peng, is liable for cargo damage because it failed to meet its burden of explanation under COGSA and the last carrier rule, despite its contractual arrangements with the initial carrier.
• 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