Implied Warranty Of Workmanlike Performance

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

• Thompson v. Trent Mar. Co., Ltd.
  353 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in ordering a remittitur on damages, and that the shipowner was not entitled to indemnity from the stevedore based on the jury's findings and the evidence presented.
• Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ne. Petroleum Indus., Inc.
  706 F.2d 349· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 15×
  Indemnity was not warranted because the shipowner was actively negligent, but contribution is allowed between the joint tortfeasors based on their relative fault.
• Oglebay Norton Co. v. CSX Corp.
  788 F.2d 361· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 14×
  A wharfinger's breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike service entitles a shipowner to indemnity, and the shipowner's negligence does not preclude recovery unless it prevents or seriously hampers the wharfinger's performance.
• United States v. Tobias Ebinger
  386 F.2d 557· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the finding of liability but reversed the damages award, remanding for a redetermination to account for savings in maintenance costs.
• Stevenson McCLENDON v. Charente S.S. Co., Ltd.
  348 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1965-07-12 ·cited 14×
  The court's concurrence emphasizes that the 1959 amendments to the Longshoremen's Act were intended to expand, not contract, the rights of injured workers, and do not provide significant benefit to stevedore-employers or third-party shipowners.
• Partenweederei v. Weigel
  313 F.2d 423· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a claim for indemnity, not raised in the trial court or on initial appeal, cannot be asserted for the first time in a petition for rehearing.
• Carmine D'Agosta v. Royal Netherlands S.S. Co.
  301 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1962-03-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an express indemnity provision in a stevedoring contract precludes a claim for indemnity based on an implied warranty of workmanlike service, but the court can grant relief under the express provision even if not explicitly pleaded.
• Puleo v. H. E. Moss & Co.
  159 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1947-02-20 ·cited 14×
  The owner of the vessel was solely liable for the death of the libellant's intestate due to negligence in failing to warn of known dangers. The repair company was contractually obligated to indemnify the vessel owner.
• F.W.F., Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
  494 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2007-06-25 ·cited 13×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding no material breach by either party.
• Fed. Commerce & Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc.
  542 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the terminal tariff's time bar and limitation of liability provisions were not enforceable against the shipowner's indemnity claims because the Shipping Act does not authorize such limitations for stevedoring services, and indemnity claims accrue upon loss, no
• United States v. Hollis
  424 F.2d 188· 4th Cir.· 1970-03-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for clarification of the district court's findings regarding the plaintiff's contributory negligence, as this determination is crucial for deciding the employer's liability for indemnity.
• Famous Rogers v. United States Lines Co.
  303 F.2d 295· 3d Cir.· 1962-05-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a consignee who arranges for cargo discharge impliedly warrants its safe and workmanlike performance, entitling the shipowner to contractual indemnity for damages arising from the longshoreman's injuries.
• Curtis v. CIA.
  272 F.2d 235· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the vessel owner's knowledge of substandard cargo discharge methods precluded its right to indemnity from the stevedore.
• SS Amazonia v. NEW Jersey Exp. Marine Carpenters, Inc.
  564 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the stevedore/carpenter contractor was not liable, holding that the shipowner failed to prove breach of warranty or causation for the cargo damage.
• United States v. Emery H. Joyce
  511 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-18 ·cited 12×
  A pilot's negligence in maneuvering a vessel, leading to a collision and damage, requires indemnification of the vessel owner, even without expert testimony or application of the Pennsylvania Rule or Ryan indemnity.
• Hullon Davis v. Chas. Kurz & Co., Inc.
  483 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the trial court's findings that only the employer was negligent, that the vessel was not unseaworthy, and that indemnity was owed or not owed as determined below.
• Capozziello v. Brasileiro
  443 F.2d 1155· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the contractual indemnity clause unambiguously required the stevedore to indemnify the shipowner for claims by the stevedore's employees, even if the shipowner was solely at fault.
• Rocco Ferrigno v. Ocean Transp. Ltd.
  309 F.2d 445· 2d Cir.· 1962-10-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a stevedore is not liable to indemnify a shipowner under a hold-harmless clause absent a showing of intent to benefit the shipowner.
• Dante Parenzan v. Iino Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisya
  251 F.2d 928· 2d Cir.· 1958-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the stevedoring firm was actively negligent and breached its implied warranty of safe performance, entitling the shipowner to indemnity.
• Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Stokes OIL Co., Inc.
  863 F.2d 1250· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-12 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no error in the apportionment of liability, rejection of the implied warranty claim, admission of evidence, determination of damages, or award of prejudgment interest.
• Seguros "Illimani" S.A. v. M/V Popi P
  929 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual tin ingots are not COGSA 'packages' for liability limitation purposes, and that bundles of ingots, as indicated by other bill of lading entries and the physical packaging, constitute the relevant COGSA packages. The court also affirmed the stevedore
• Bridges Scott v. The SS Ciudad de Ibague
  426 F.2d 1105· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 10×
  A shipowner cannot recover indemnity from a stevedore for breach of the warranty of workmanlike performance when the stevedore did not breach that warranty, even if the shipowner's own conduct might have precluded recovery.
• Bertino v. Polish Ocean Line
  402 F.2d 863· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The shipowner was liable for the longshoreman's injuries due to an unseaworthy condition, and the stevedore was not liable for indemnity because it did not breach its warranty of workmanlike performance.
• Italia Societa PER Azioni di Navigazione v. Or. Stevedoring Co., Inc.
  310 F.2d 481· 9th Cir.· 1962-10-25 ·cited 10×
  A stevedoring company's implied warranty of workmanlike service includes the duty to furnish equipment that is fit for its intended use, and this warranty can be breached even without negligence.
• McNAMARA v. Weichsel Dampfschifffahrts AG Kiel
  339 F.2d 475· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-21 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the judgment against Pittston, holding that the jury was properly instructed regarding Lemke's employment and that Pittston's claim against the time charterer was correctly dismissed.
• United States for the Use of Valders Stone & Marble v. C-Way Constr. Co.
  909 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Selvick, as an incidental beneficiary, could not sue Valders for breach of contract or under the warranty of workmanlike performance, and that pendent appellate jurisdiction did not apply to Valders's cross-appeal.
• A & S Transp. Co., Inc. v. The TUG Fajardo
  688 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 8×
  A bareboat charterer, like the owner, cannot recover consequential damages for loss of use when a vessel is a total loss.
• Jackson O. King v. Deutsche Dampfs-Ges
  523 F.2d 1042· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of unseaworthiness and that the employer's warranty of workmanlike performance was breached as a matter of law by the employee's contributory negligence.
• Joaquim Conceicao v. NEW Jersey Exp. Marine Carpenters, Inc.
  508 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the shipowner's negligence in failing to provide adequate information and supervision during cargo loading was a proximate cause of the longshoreman's injury, and this conduct precluded the shipowner's claim for indemnity against the stevedore.
• Dillingham TUG & Barge Corp. v. Collier Carbon & Chem. Corp.
  707 F.2d 1086· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 7×
  An insurance provision in a towage contract requiring the owner to insure the vessel for the benefit of the tower is generally enforceable and not against public policy, and the owner cannot recover from the tower for losses paid by the insurer.
• Purnell v. Norned Shipping B.V. & Chesapeake Trading Corp. v. Wilmington Stevedores & City of Wilmington
  801 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Stevedore was entitled to contribution from the City, as the federal maritime wrongful death claim against the City preempted Delaware's Workmen's Compensation Act exclusivity provision. The court affirmed the denial of indemnity and the apportionment of f
• Parks v. United States
  784 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar the United States from impleading a state in admiralty, and the United States can recover indemnity from the Academy based on implied contractual warranty of workmanlike service under federal maritime law.
• Fentress v. United States
  431 F.2d 824· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act does not preclude recovery for injuries caused by the government's violation of the Illinois Scaffold Act, as the Scaffold Act does not impose absolute liability. The government is entitled to indemnity from the contractor based on their respective neg
• Giacomo la Capria v. Compagnie Maritime Belge
  427 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Spencer, as a stevedore, breached its implied warranty of workmanlike service to Belgian Line by improperly tiering sacks of flour, making it liable for damages resulting from the breach.
• Blow v. Compagnie Mar. Belge (Lloyd Royal) S.A.
  395 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1968-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the shipowner's duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is absolute, and the jury was entitled to consider conflicting evidence regarding the stevedore's negligence in its indemnity claim.
• Matson Terminals, Inc. v. Caldwell
  354 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 4×
  A stevedore who continues to use known defective equipment without verifying repairs breaches its implied warranty of workmanlike service, entitling the shipowner to indemnity.
• Pierce v. Erie R.R. Co.
  264 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1959-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Spencer, as indemnitor, was liable to Erie Railroad Company under their stevedoring contract for the injury sustained by Pierce, and that Spencer's claim for indemnity against McGrath was properly dismissed due to lack of proof.
• Stranahan v. A/S Atlantica & Tinfos Papirfabrik
  521 F.2d 700· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-30 ·cited 3×
  A time-charterer cannot recover indemnity for defense costs from a stevedore based on an express contract or an implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
• Cooper v. Loper
  923 F.2d 1045· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had admiralty jurisdiction, the dockowner waived its jury trial right, and the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous; however, the shipowners were entitled to full indemnity and attorneys' fees.
• Kane v. Hawaiian Indep. Refinery, Inc.
  690 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pilotage clause, clearly stating the pilot acts as a servant of the vessel, is valid and effectively shifts liability for the pilot's negligence to the vessel owner, even if presented late or under conditions of compulsory use.
• Misener Marine Constr. Co. & Md. Cas. Co. v. Southport Marine, Inc.
  377 So. 2d 757· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-11-30 ·cited 2×
  In this maritime workers' compensation dispute, the court rejected both contractual and common law indemnity claims arising from an injury to Forest Filbert, an employee of Misener Marine, while working on a barge in a bridge construction project. The court held that the indemnit
• Williamson v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navigacion (Venezuelan Line)
  446 F.2d 1339· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipowner's arguments for liability over against the stevedore and shipper failed because the jury's verdict implicitly rejected the testimony forming the basis of those arguments. The award for damages was not excessive.
• Naven Joseph Guillory v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co.
  433 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the drilling barge's employer solely at fault for the seaman's injuries, and thus no apportionment of damages was required.
• Allison v. Cosmos S.S. Corp.
  433 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 2×
  A stevedore's implied warranty of workmanlike performance does not extend to latent defects in equipment not supplied by the stevedore, especially when the stevedore conducted a reasonable inspection.
• SS Lena Luckenbach & Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.
  395 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipowner was entitled to indemnification from the stevedore for attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending the personal injury claim.
• Seattle Stevedore Co. v. Compania Maritima & Mar. Co. of the Philippines
  373 F.2d 9· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-27 ·cited 2×
  A stevedore's breach of its implied warranty of workmanlike performance occurs when it renders the vessel unseaworthy, regardless of the cause.
• Italia Societa PER Azioni DI Navigazione v. Or. Stevedoring Co., Inc.
  336 F.2d 124· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 2×
  A stevedore's contractual assumption of liability for its own negligence does not negate its implied warranty of workmanlike service, especially when the stevedore supplied defective equipment causing injury.
• Triguero v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  932 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an employee injured while transporting cargo between a pier and an adjacent rail facility is covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), making his employer immune from tort-based contribution claims. The court also held that the thi
• Slade, Inc. v. Scurlock OIL Co.
  418 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-22 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the appellant failed to prove fault or negligence by the appellee, or a causal connection between any alleged breach and the injuries sustained.
• Grimaldi Deep Sea S.p.A. v. SSA Atl., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that a time charterer cannot recover indemnity under the implied warranty of workmanlike performance for claims arising from property damage or personal injury to maritime rescuers, as the Ryan doctrine's justifications do not apply in this context.