-
250 F.2d 777·
2d Cir.·
1957-11-29
·cited 20×
The court denied petitions for rehearing, reaffirming its prior opinion that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge's theory regarding tarpaulins becoming as inflammable as impregnated bagging.
-
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.
-
666 F.2d 897·
5th Cir.·
1982-02-01
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its judgment regarding the origin and cause of the fire, and failed to address critical issues of the shipowner's potential negligence and assumption of risk.
-
603 F.2d 1327·
9th Cir.·
1979-03-08
·cited 16×
The court held that the appellees (owner and charterer) failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy and properly man it, thus forfeiting the fire exemption under COGSA and the Fire Statute.
-
480 F.2d 669·
2d Cir.·
1973-06-05
·cited 16×
Shipowners are not exempt from liability for cargo damage caused by fire if the damage could have been prevented by adequate fire-fighting equipment, even if the fire's ignition was not due to the owner's negligence.
-
269 F.2d 68·
2d Cir.·
1959-06-18
·cited 14×
The court held that a specific finding on whether Captain Svendsen was a managing agent was unnecessary for determining the vessel owner's liability to cargo owners.
-
734 F.2d 199·
5th Cir.·
1984-06-14
·cited 12×
The court held that the Fire Statute does not require a carrier to prove due diligence to provide a seaworthy ship as a precondition to invoking the statute's protection; the burden remains on the cargo to prove the fire was caused by the owner's 'design or neglect'.
-
295 F.2d 619·
9th Cir.·
1961-09-28
·cited 10×
The court held that a ship repair contractor cannot rely on the shipowner's warranty of seaworthiness for facilities and must ensure their availability and proper working order, especially when the contractor's own actions create a fire risk.
-
388 F.2d 434·
2d Cir.·
1968-01-16
·cited 8×
The court affirmed the denial of limitation of liability and the finding of unseaworthiness, holding that the shipowner failed to prove due diligence in making the vessel seaworthy and was privy to the unseaworthy condition.
-
677 F.2d 225·
2d Cir.·
1982-04-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court erred in misplacing the burden of proof regarding the Fire Statute and COGSA, and in admitting certain evidence and excluding rebuttal testimony.
-
946 F.2d 1131·
5th Cir.·
1991-11-12
·cited 4×
The court held that collateral estoppel could not be applied against the fumigators because Universal's interests conflicted with theirs in the arbitration, preventing adequate representation. The court also found that Universal's arguments in arbitration regarding the cause of t
-
509 F.2d 1249·
9th Cir.·
1975-01-23
·cited 4×
The court held that a shipowner's statutory immunity from liability for cargo damage caused by fire does not apply if the owner's negligence or actual fault contributed to the damage, either by causing the fire or by failing to prevent its spread.
-
312 F.2d 177·
2d Cir.·
1963-01-02
·cited 4×
The court held that striking the shipowner's answer for failure to comply with a discovery order was not an abuse of discretion.
-
273 F.2d 61·
2d Cir.·
1959-12-14
·cited 4×
The court held that the owner's petition for rehearing is granted regarding cargo owner claims, remanding for findings on the owner's personal negligence and Captain Svendsen's authority.
-
756 F.2d 1223·
5th Cir.·
1985-04-11
The court held that the charter party's "actual fault or privity" clause, interpreted in light of maritime law, prevents the imputation of the Master's negligence to the vessel owner under respondeat superior, thus precluding owner liability for damages caused by the Master's err