Implied Warranty Of Workmanlike Performance

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

• Lusich v. Bloomfield S.S. Co.
  355 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-24 ·cited 74×
  The court held that withdrawing the negligence theory from the jury was reversible error, and that the shipowner was entitled to a new trial on its third-party indemnity claim.
• Loffland Bros. Co. v. Roberts
  386 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 65×
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Turbine Serv., Inc.
  674 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Todd Shipyards guilty of gross negligence, thus the limitation of liability clause was effective. The court affirmed liability for the river casualty but modified the damages awarded.
• Halliburton Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Norton Drilling Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  302 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-25 ·cited 62×
  A third-party complaint seeking indemnity based on implied contractual warranty of workmanlike service or active-passive negligence fails when there is no contractual relationship between the parties and the employer is protected by workers' compensation.
• Smith Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  420 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of implied indemnity does not apply to non-maritime, land-based accidents, and that Mississippi's Workmen's Compensation Act bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking indemnity from the employer.
• Paul v. Ruiz
  413 F.2d 310· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-23 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court correctly refused to submit the borrowed-servant issue to the jury because there was no evidence of control or agreement establishing such a relationship.
• Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. v. Berry Bros. Oilfield Serv., Inc.
  377 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1967-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine, which allows a shipowner to seek indemnity from a stevedoring contractor for breach of workmanlike service, does not apply to a platform owner seeking indemnity from a repair contractor for injuries sustained by the contractor's employees on
• David Crystal, Inc. v. The Cunard Steam-Ship Co. Ltd.
  339 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-09 ·cited 57×
  The court should give effect to clear exculpatory language in a contract between sophisticated parties.
• Schwartz v. Compagnie General Transatlantique
  405 F.2d 270· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-11 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the implied warranty of workmanlike performance doctrine does not apply to the United States in this case, as there was no contractual relationship and the U.S. was performing a statutory function, not a service for the shipowner.
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Auto Transp., S.A.
  763 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 52×
  The law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of issues decided in a prior appeal, and attorney's fees awarded for breach of warranty are foreseeable damages subject to contractual limitations.
• Earline Whisenant v. Brewster-Bartle Offshore Co.
  446 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of indemnity applies even without privity of contract, but the indemnitee must prove actual liability and reasonableness of settlement if defense was not tendered to the indemnitor.
• Gator Marine Serv. Towing, Inc. v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co.
  651 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the district court's apportionment of comparative fault and denial of McDermott's tort lien, finding no abuse of discretion in the prejudgment interest rate.
• Strachan Shipping Co. v. Koninklyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maalschappy, N.V.
  324 F.2d 746· 5th Cir.· 1963-11-14 ·cited 50×
  A shipowner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and expenses from a stevedore for defending a longshoreman's suit when a jury finds the shipowner blameless and the stevedore's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injury.
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. The Mobile Drilling Barge or Vessel Known As MR. Charlie
  424 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that both the drilling company (ODECO) and the lease operator (SIGNAL) were concurrently negligent in causing damage to a pipeline, and that SIGNAL was not entitled to contractual indemnity from ODECO for its own negligence. The dismissal of claims against co-owner
• Am. President Lines, Ltd. v. Marine Terminals Corp.
  234 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-14 ·cited 48×
  A stevedoring contractor's breach of its implied contractual duty to perform services in a safe and workmanlike manner, even if the shipowner also provided a defective item, entitles the shipowner to indemnity for damages caused by the stevedore's active negligence.
• Booth S.S. Co., Ltd. v. Meier & Oelhaf Co.
  262 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1958-12-29 ·cited 47×
  A contractor who supplies defective equipment for maritime repair work, even if the defect is latent and not discoverable by ordinary inspection, breaches the implied warranty of workmanlike service and is liable to indemnify the vessel owner for damages paid to the contractor's
• Reddick v. McALLISTER Lighterage Line, Inc.
  258 F.2d 297· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-14 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge would hold the loading stevedore liable for indemnification, finding the evidence sufficient to establish a breach of its implied warranty of workmanlike service.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  677 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a district court erred in retaining jurisdiction over state-law third-party claims after the main federal admiralty claims were settled, as such retention was not justified by judicial efficiency or necessity and improperly encroached on state law.
• Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc. v. Tracor/MAS, Inc.
  520 F.2d 1030· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficiently definite for appellate review, requiring a remand.
• Fairmont Shipping Corp. & Fairwinds Ocean Carriers Corp. v. Chevron Int'l OIL Co., Inc.
  511 F.2d 1252· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-04 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the proof was insufficient to support a finding that Chevron breached its obligation to provide ordinary tug assistance, as the tugs acted reasonably given the circumstances.
• Brock v. Coral Drilling, Inc.
  477 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the employer breached its warranty of workmanlike service by proceeding with unloading in unsafe conditions, entitling the shipowner to indemnity. The court also affirmed the denial of indemnity from Shell.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Moretz
  270 F.2d 780· 4th Cir.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 39×
  A carrier's contractual obligation to safely secure cargo includes an implied warranty of workmanlike service, entitling the shipper to indemnity for losses caused by the carrier's breach, even if the shipper was also negligent, and this contractual indemnity is not barred by a w
• Dugas v. Pelican Constr. Co., Inc.
  481 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the injured worker was not a Jones Act seaman or borrowed employee, but was entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness. The court affirmed the finding of Union's negligence and the vessel's unseaworthiness due to fatigue, but reversed the contribution judgment
• A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi v. Commercial Stevedoring Co., Inc.
  256 F.2d 227· 2d Cir.· 1958-06-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indemnity clause in the stevedoring contract is governed by federal maritime law, not state law, and requires the stevedore to indemnify the shipowner.
• Pettus v. Grace Line, Inc.
  305 F.2d 151· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge was erroneous because it failed to instruct the jury that the provision of defective winches could affect the shipowner's right to recover over from the stevedoring companies for breach of warranty.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. & Emp'rs Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co.
  605 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 34×
  The Fifth Circuit held that the insurer who paid the settlement was entitled to recoup a share from the other insurer based on the stipulation and the nature of the liability.
• Flunker v. United States
  528 F.2d 239· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 34×
  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the United States, as the owner of the landing craft, breached an implied warranty of workmanlike performance owed to States Steamship Co. (States) and must indemnify States for payments made to its injured se
• Huff v. Matson Navigation Co.
  338 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1964-10-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred by narrowly defining 'ship's gear' and that the issue of whether the unloading apparatus was reasonably fit for its intended purpose remained for determination.
• Centraal Stikstof Verkoop-Kanter v. Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.
  380 F.2d 523· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-28 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the contract's limitation of liability precluded an implied warranty claim and that the insurance policy exclusion applied.
• Hobart v. Sohio Petroleum Co.
  445 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Ryan indemnity doctrine does not apply to a shipper seeking indemnification from a carrier when the shipper's liability is based on ordinary negligence, not the shipowner's absolute duty of seaworthiness.
• Arista CIA. DeVAPORES v. Terminal
  372 F.2d 152· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-09 ·cited 28×
  A shipowner is entitled to indemnification from a stevedore for expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in defending against a longshoreman's injury claim, even if the longshoreman's own negligence was the sole cause of his injury.
• Spann v. Lauritzen
  344 F.2d 204· 3d Cir.· 1965-04-19 ·cited 28×
  A shipowner's duty of seaworthiness extends to longshoremen injured by defective equipment used in unloading the vessel, even if the equipment is shore-based and not owned by the shipowner.
• Stein Hale & Co., Inc. v. S.S. Concordia Viking
  494 F.2d 287· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that bills of lading are not admissible against a stevedore under COGSA, but they are admissible as business records, and a stevedore's failure to tally cargo does not excuse liability for its loss.
• CIA Maritima del Nervion v. James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp.
  308 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-18 ·cited 26×
  A stevedore is not liable for indemnity to a shipowner when a longshoreman is injured due to a latent defect in the ship's equipment, absent actual notice of the defect by the stevedore.
• Rich v. United States Lines, Inc.
  596 F.2d 541· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff failed to present evidence on the theories of liability argued to the district court, despite the concurring judge's view that a negligence claim under land-based theories might have been viable.
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Philadelphia Ship Maint. Co., Inc.
  444 F.2d 727· 3d Cir.· 1971-06-03 ·cited 24×
  The findings in the longshoreman's suit against the shipowner are not binding on the stevedore because the stevedore was not a party and did not have a duty to defend. The shipowner must prove the stevedore breached its warranty of workmanlike performance.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  688 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court granted appellants leave to amend their pleadings to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, remanding the case for that purpose.
• Penn Tanker Co. v. United States
  409 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the shipowner was not entitled to full indemnity from the United States, as damages should be apportioned based on each party's negligence.
• Tebbs v. The Baker-Whiteley Towing Co.
  407 F.2d 1055· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a tug owner has a duty to take necessary precautions for the safety of both vessels when towing a 'dead ship,' and that a breach of this duty constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance, entitling the shipowner to indemnity.
• Vaccaro v. Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc.
  405 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The exclusion of contemporaneous accident reports was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial.
• Drewery v. Daspit Bros. Marine Divers, Inc.
  317 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indemnity agreement's exception for the contractor's negligence did not apply when the injured employee's own negligence caused the loss, thus the contractor was obligated to indemnify the indemnitee.
• Orlando v. Prudential S.S. Corp.
  313 F.2d 822· 2d Cir.· 1963-02-05 ·cited 22×
  A stevedore is not liable for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike service for failing to discover and correct a dangerous condition on a vessel if the condition was not in an area generally traversed by its employees and the stevedore lacked adequate opportunity to reme
• Rederi A/B Dalen v. Maher
  303 F.2d 565· 4th Cir.· 1962-05-19 ·cited 22×
  A shipowner is entitled to indemnity from a stevedore for attorney's fees incurred in defending a claim, even if the underlying claim was settled without a judgment against the shipowner, provided the stevedore breached its warranty of workmanlike service.
• Hillier v. S. Towing Co.
  714 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Suits in Admiralty Act, as amended, does not unequivocally express consent to be sued for claims arising from the alleged negligence of a government inspector, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Wilson v. Nooter Corp.
  475 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the question of whether the crane operators were Nooter's borrowed servants should have been submitted to the jury, as the evidence allowed for conflicting inferences regarding control.
• Stanislaw Ignatyuk v. Tramp Chartering Corp.
  250 F.2d 198· 2d Cir.· 1957-12-16 ·cited 20×
  An implied warranty of workmanlike performance by a stevedore does not require the stevedore to discover latent defects in vessel equipment not obvious upon cursory inspection.
• Troy S. Morris & the Travelers Indem. Co. v. UHL & Lopez Eng'rs, Inc.
  442 F.2d 1247· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent based on industry standards that were not proven to apply to successive pole mountings. The court also held that the United States was not entitled to tort indemnity from Uhl & Lopez becau
• Bernardo Penoro v. Rederi A/B Disa and Vessel Disa
  376 F.2d 125· 2d Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 18×
  An order granting a stay of an admiralty proceeding pending arbitration is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Master Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Farida
  571 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgments for damages against the stevedore and marine lasher, but remanded for recalculation of interest.
• Hurdich v. Eastmount Shipping Corp.
  503 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 16×
  A shipowner's own conduct, including actual knowledge of a hazardous condition and failure to remedy it, can preclude indemnity from a contractor for breach of workmanlike service, allowing for contribution instead.