Harter Act

95 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• 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.
• ALL Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. v. M/V SEA Producer
  882 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 6×
  A claim for cargo damage can sound in tort, independent of contract, and thus qualify as a preferred maritime lien under the Ship Mortgage Act, taking priority over a preferred ship mortgage.
• Crisis Transp. Co. v. M/V Erlangen Express
  794 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence under COGSA because there was no evidence of damage while the cargo was in the carrier's custody.
• In re the Complaint of Ionian Glow Marine, Inc. v. United States
  670 F.2d 462· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that payments made to servicemen in settlement of claims are proper items of damages in a mutual fault collision case, even if direct claims against the government are barred.
• United States v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co.
  294 F.2d 179· 9th Cir.· 1961-08-30 ·cited 6×
  A third party cannot recover damages from the United States for injuries to a U.S. employee, even in admiralty, if those damages are solely covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).
• Globe Solvents Co. v. The Cal.
  167 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1948-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the carrier is responsible for proving negligence and that the lower court's finding of negligence was supported by evidence.
• The Temple Bar. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Temple S.S. Co., Ltd.
  137 F.2d 293· 4th Cir.· 1943-07-29 ·cited 6×
  A shipowner is not liable for loss caused by the master's negligent navigation if the ship was otherwise seaworthy and the master was competent and supplied with adequate charts and publications.
• Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., Inc.
  771 F. Supp. 1193· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 5×
  Summary judgment is granted for the ocean freight charges, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, but denied for the counterclaim regarding damaged goods, as the point of damage is a factual question.
• Uncle Ben's Int'l Div. OF Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft & Biehl & Co., Inc.
  855 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) one-year statute of limitations, incorporated into the bills of lading, applied to pre-loading damage claims, and that this limitation was not invalidated by the Harter Act.
• 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.
• SUN OIL Co. OF Pa. v. M/T Carisle
  771 F.2d 805· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 0.5% trade allowance for crude oil measurement imprecision does not violate COGSA.
• PPG Indus., Inc. v. Ashland OIL Company-Thomas Petroleum Transit Div.
  592 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on the carrier to demonstrate due diligence after an excepted peril caused damage, and that the shipper failed to prove negligence.
• Baker OIL Tools, Inc. v. DELTA S.S. Lines, Inc.
  571 F.2d 978· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court clarified its prior opinion by adding statutory references and a jurisdictional observation, and denied the petition for rehearing.
• Alf Larsen v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  362 F.2d 261· 9th Cir.· 1966-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 'Inchmaree' clause and Average warranty did not cover the loss of salmon cargo due to crew negligence in refrigeration.
• Oliver J. Olson & Co. v. The Am. S.S. Marine Leopard
  356 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the commissioner erred in rejecting evidence of comparable vessel sales and in relying solely on depreciated reproduction cost for valuation. It also held that the district court erred in reallocating death and personal injury claims, invalidating a settlement
• Petition of Reliance Marine Transp. & Const. Corp. THE M. J. Woods
  206 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1953-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the finding that the barge was unseaworthy when delivered, holding the owner directly liable to the carrier for the cargo loss without limitation, while the carrier was liable to the cargo for the full amount.
• Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis
  776 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the carrier validly limited its liability to $500 per package, that each yacht constituted a package, and that the purchasers of the bills of lading were bound by these terms.
• Pan-American Trading Co. v. Franquiz
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-10-31 ·cited 3×
  Pan-American Trading Company sued Jose Franquiz for breach of a contract of affreightment involving the loss of a cargo of lumber aboard the schooner John Francis. The vessel was chartered to carry cargo from Florida to Puerto Rico but was lost at sea after suffering mechanical f
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Puerto RICO Marine Mgmt., Inc.
  768 F.2d 470· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 2×
  A long-form bill of lading filed with the FMC and incorporated by reference into a short-form bill of lading provides constructive notice of its terms, including limitations provisions, to consignees and their subrogated insurers.
• Fernales Shipping Co., S.A. v. Bonaire Petroleum Corp.
  733 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that neither party should recover because both contributed to the failure of the voyage charter agreement through their respective delays and omissions.
• ALL Commodities Supplies v. M/V Acritas
  702 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the carrier properly delivered the cargo under the Harter Act by surrendering it to the Nigerian stevedores as required by port law, and that any damage occurring after this point was not imputable to the carrier under COGSA.
• Calcot, Ltd. v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc.
  318 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1963-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the carrier's liability ended upon proper delivery of the cotton to the consignee at the wharf, as determined by general maritime law, and the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence by the defendants.
• King Ocean Servs. Ltd. v. CI Mistic SAS Fruits & Vegetables, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-28
  The court held that Counts II, III, and IV of the counterclaim are dismissed due to COGSA preemption, and the set-off affirmative defense is stricken.
• PT Indonesia Epson Indus. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
  219 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-17
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the driver's potential involvement in the cargo hijacking, which impacts the applicability of COGSA's exceptions.
• PT Indonesia Epson Indus. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
  208 F. Supp. 2d 1334· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-15
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the driver's potential involvement in the cargo's loss.
• Realini v. Contship Containerlines, Ltd.
  143 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-07
  The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability and denied partial summary judgment for the defendant on damages, finding that the issue of whether the yacht constituted a single package for liability limitation purposes required further factual develop
• Union OIL Co. OF Cal. v. M/V Point Dover
  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
• Morris v. Am. Shipping Co., Inc.
  748 F.2d 563· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-10
  The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) limitations were inapplicable to the post-discharge period, and the carrier failed to meet its burden of proof regarding when cargo was damaged, making the Harter Act controlling. Maritime was liable for excessive storage costs due to fail
• Woodhouse v. M/V Righteous
  710 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-04
  The court held that Navale, as a through carrier, is liable for damage occurring between Antwerp and Jacksonville, and that appellant is estopped from asserting damage beyond that noted in Navale's bills of lading.
• Farrell Lines Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co.
  696 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-14
  The court held that under the Harter Act, proper delivery for a carrier's liability is determined by the custom and regulations of the foreign port, and the carrier's liability ends when it relinquishes control of the cargo to the designated authority.
• Caribe Tugboat Corp. v. J. D. Barter Constr. Co.
  509 F. Supp. 312· M.D. Fla.· 1981-01-29
  The court held that the exculpatory clauses in the private contract of affreightment are enforceable because the parties, including experienced contractors represented by counsel, freely negotiated the terms, including the risk allocation and insurance provisions, and the contrac
• Levatino Co., Inc. v. Am. President Lines, Ltd.
  359 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1966-03-29
  The court held that the Commissioner erred in refusing to hear evidence on the extent of damage and that the Commissioner's fee was excessive.
• Schade v. Nat'l Sur. Corp. & Cont'l Ins. Co.
  288 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-04
  The court held that the libelant failed to sufficiently prove the shipowner exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, barring recovery of general average contributions.
• Quaker Oats Co. v. United Fruit Co.
  230 F.2d 676· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-16
  The court held that the carrier was not liable for the damage to the oats, as the relationship was governed by a delivery receipt limiting liability to that of an ordinary bailee, and the oats were stored with reasonable care under the circumstances.
• S. L. Shepard & Co. v. Agwilines, Inc.
  130 F.2d 67· 4th Cir.· 1942-08-13
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the carrier, as issues of fact regarding the carrier's negligence in refrigeration and the shipper's waiver of risk required jury determination.