Contract Of Carriage

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

• 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.
• Citrus Mktg. Bd. OF Israel & Agrexco (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. J. Lauritzen A/S
  943 F.2d 220· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiffs may have a valid claim against the ship manager for negligence, and affirmed the denial of the stay because the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
• Inst. OF London Underwriters & Ferguson & Co. v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  881 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 9×
  Where the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) is incorporated by contract but does not apply ex proprio vigore, inconsistent contract terms are given force, and a bill of lading can define a shipped item as a COGSA 'package' even if it would not qualify under COGSA's statutory d
• 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.
• Sanchez-Arroyo v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  835 F.2d 407· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 8×
  A legal theory not presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, except in rare circumstances of compelling new theories or gross miscarriage of justice.
• C.A. Articulos Nacionales de Goma Gomaven v. M/V Aragua
  756 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the unexplained disappearance of cargo does not, by itself, constitute a deviation that deprives the carrier of the liability limitations provided by COGSA.
• 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.
• Geller v. Holland-America Line
  298 F.2d 618· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-19 ·cited 8×
  Passengers are bound by a one-year limitation provision in a contract of carriage if it is incorporated by reference, even if not read, and failure to sue within that period bars the action.
• 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.
• English Elec. Valve Co., Ltd. v. M/V Hoegh Mallard
  814 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the carrier retained custody of the cargo until it was picked up by the consignee's trucker, establishing a prima facie case for damage during that period, and that on-deck stowage was not an unreasonable deviation, thus the COGSA liability limitation applied.
• 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
• The Wackenhut Corp. & Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Lippert
  591 So. 2d 215· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-06-12 ·cited 6×
  A passenger lost jewelry worth approximately $431,000 during a security checkpoint inspection at an airport operated by Wackenhut, Delta's agent. The court held that Delta's tariff limitation of liability to $1,250 does not apply when a passenger is forced to relinquish possessio
• Sulewski v. Fed. Express Corp.
  933 F.2d 180· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 6×
  An aircraft mechanic assigned to specific flights, whose primary purpose for being on board is to fulfill employment obligations on the ground at destination airports, is not a "passenger" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention.
• In re the Complaint v. M/V Damodar Tanabe
  903 F.2d 675· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a carrier claiming a COGSA fire exception does not lose the exception simply because the vessel was unseaworthy, if the unseaworthiness did not cause the loss.
• In re Intercontinental Props. Mgmt. v. Sequros Caracas
  604 F.2d 254· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in exonerating the shipowner because the seaman's willful scuttling of the ship, even if outside the typical scope of employment, falls within the "fault or neglect of the agents or servants" exception of COGSA's Q-clause, thus preclud
• Commerce OIL Corp. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
  252 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the carrier was excused from liability under the Harter Act for cargo damage resulting from navigation and management errors.
• 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
• Hill Constr. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  996 F.2d 1315· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-29 ·cited 4×
  A contract provision limiting an air carrier's liability for lost or damaged cargo is valid and applicable even if the carrier breaches the carriage contract, provided the limitation is reasonably communicated and offers the shipper an option to declare a higher value.
• C-Art, Ltd. v. Hong Kong Islands Line Am., S.A.
  940 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 4×
  An ocean carrier is liable for misdelivery of goods when it releases them without the original, properly endorsed bill of lading, even if the consignee has title and the bill of lading was intended to be negotiable.
• Interocean S.S. Corp. & Transp. Intermediaries Mut. Ins. Ass'n, Ltd. v. NEW Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd.
  865 F.2d 699· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-17 ·cited 4×
  A customhouse broker and warehouse are not liable for misdelivery of goods when they had no duty to obtain or surrender negotiable bills of lading, and acted in good faith.
• United States v. Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc.
  699 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The United States cannot recover the value of undelivered cargo because it was not the owner and had no assignment of claim, and freight charges for minor, inevitable losses are not recoverable under industry custom.
• Life Scis., Inc. v. Emery AIR Freight Corp.
  341 So. 2d 272· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-01-07 ·cited 4×
  A tariff filed by an air freight forwarder with the CAB, containing a one-year limitation for bringing suit on property damage claims, is valid and enforceable under federal law.
• 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.
• Feinberg v. Ry. Express Agency
  163 F.2d 998· 7th Cir.· 1947-10-29 ·cited 4×
  A shipper is bound by the liability limitation in a carrier's receipt, even if the value stated was based on an agent's limited knowledge, provided the carrier acted in good faith and filed its tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
• 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
• Nevelle R. Stud v. Trans Int'l Airlines
  727 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Warsaw Convention for failure to provide timely written notice of the horse's death, as the death constituted damage requiring notice within fourteen days.
• 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
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express Int'l USA, Inc.
  602 F. Supp. 2d 1260· S.D. Fla.· 2009-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Montreal Convention preempts state law claims for damage to international air cargo, and that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for liability under the Convention.
• Bird v. Celebrity Cruise Line, Inc.
  428 F. Supp. 2d 1275· S.D. Fla.· 2005-11-04 ·cited 2×
  Admiralty law does not recognize implied warranty of merchantability or strict products liability claims for cruise ship passengers against the operator for food-related illnesses, absent express contractual provisions or specific exceptions.
• Compania Panamena de Aviacion, S.A. v. The Honorable Norman Gerstein
  645 So. 2d 55· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal granted in part a writ of prohibition against a trial judge to preclude wrongful death actions against an airline (COPA) under the Warsaw Convention's jurisdictional limitations, but denied the writ as to maintenance companies whose services w
• Morrow Crane Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.
  885 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the applicable insurance clause is determined by the contract between the insured's agent and the carrier, not the contract between the insured and its agent.
• Genetics Int'l v. Cormorant Bulk Carriers, Inc.
  877 F.2d 806· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 2×
  A district court may grant summary judgment for unpaid freight on a second shipment, even if the shipper has an unrelated pending claim for cargo damage from a first shipment.
• Franklin Stainless Corp. v. Marlo Transp. Corp.
  748 F.2d 865· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipper is not entitled to indemnity from the carrier because the defect in loading was not open and obvious to the carrier, but contribution between the shipper and carrier is appropriate due to their joint responsibility for the accident.
• 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.
• S. Pac. Co. v. Brown
  404 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the carriage from El Paso to California constituted a new and separate contract, thus the Interstate Commerce Act's diversion provisions did not apply. Brown could potentially be liable under this new contract, but Commodity was not.
• Miller v. Regency Mar. Corp.
  824 F. Supp. 200· N.D. Fla.· 1992-05-12 ·cited 1×
  A forum-selection clause in a cruise ticket is enforceable unless it is fundamentally unfair, and the plaintiff's claims of inconvenience and lack of notice did not render the clause unfair in this case.
• 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.
• Eventus Mktg., Inc. v. Sunset Transp. Co.
  722 F. Supp. 2d 1311· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-14
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts state law claims arising from interstate carrier contracts, and granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing leave to amend.
• Pemberton v. Executive Airlines, Inc.
  628 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-18
  The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that Executive Airlines was bound by the IATA agreements through agency, and denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice, pending further discovery on willful misconduct.
• In re W. Caribbean Airways, S.A.
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2007-09-27
  The court held that Newvac is a 'contracting carrier' under the Montreal Convention and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be applied in cases arising under the Convention.
• 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