Limitation Of Liability Act

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

• Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
  832 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting the plaintiff's recovery based on a settlement with another tortfeasor, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover full damages less the amount already paid in settlement. The court also remanded for specific findings on
• Complaint of TUG Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States
  584 F.2d 1151· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the owner of the tug and barge (Red Star) was not entitled to limit its liability because the casualty occurred due to negligence and unseaworthiness within the privity and knowledge of Red Star's management.
• Steelmet, Inc. v. Caribe Towing Corp.
  779 F.2d 1485· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 52×
  Florida law, as established by Shingleton v. Bussey, permitted a direct action against a maritime insurer at the time Steelmet's cause of action arose, and this state law does not conflict with federal admiralty law.
• Nations v. Morris
  483 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act provides the exclusive remedy and immunity for injuries on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the Louisiana Direct Action Statute is inapplicable.
• Signal OIL & GAS Co. v. The Barge W-701
  654 F.2d 1164· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 45×
  The court held that Williams' statutory limitation of liability does not apply due to its breach of a "personal contract" to provide adequate insurance coverage to McDermott.
• Olympic Towing Corp. v. Nebel Towing Co., Inc.
  419 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a vessel owner's right to limit liability under the federal Limitation Act is a personal defense unavailable to its insurer in a Louisiana direct action suit. The court also affirmed the district court's findings regarding liability and the insurer's inability
• In re Double D Dredging Co., Inc. v. Double D Dredging Co., Inc.
  467 F.2d 468· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 44×
  A shipowner is estopped from contradicting its sworn pleadings in a consolidated limitation of liability proceeding regarding issues of navigability and seaman status in a subsequent Jones Act suit.
• Joia v. Jo-Ja Serv. Corp.
  817 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer's motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. were properly denied, and that the water boat owner was not entitled to limit its liability due to privity and knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. Joint and several liability applies under mar
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. Bonanza Corp.
  706 F.2d 1365· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Conoco could not recover wreck removal costs under its P&I policy because the removal was neither compulsory by law nor was Conoco legally liable as owner. The court also affirmed the denial of limitation of liability for Bonanza.
• Denyse Nettune Jordan Smith v. PAN AIR Corp.
  684 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 33×
  Admiralty jurisdiction over aviation torts requires both maritime locality and a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity, unless specific legislation like DOHSA applies. A seaplane is not a 'vessel' for Jones Act purposes.
• In re the Complaint of Keys JET SKI, Inc. v. Kays
  893 F.2d 1225· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 32×
  The Limitation of Liability Act applies to pleasure craft, including jet skis, and the district court erred in holding otherwise.
• Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO v. The SS ZOE Colocotroni
  628 F.2d 652· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendants' pleadings as a sanction for discovery misconduct, and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue for environmental damages.
• Spartus Corp. v. The S/S Yafo
  590 F.2d 1310· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-07 ·cited 32×
  An unreasonable geographic deviation by a carrier breaches the contract of carriage, rendering the COGSA $500 per-package limitation inapplicable. Furthermore, clock movements are not 'watches, clocks, or timepieces of any description' for the purposes of the Limitation of Liabil
• States S.S. Co. v. United States
  259 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the shipowner failed to meet its burden of proving lack of privity or knowledge, and thus was not entitled to limitation of liability due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel caused by the negligence of its managing officers.
• Metro. Coal Co. v. Howard
  155 F.2d 780· 2d Cir.· 1946-06-05 ·cited 26×
  The owner of a barge is liable for cargo loss due to unseaworthiness, even with a due diligence clause, if they fail to prove they exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy.
• In re the Complaint of Universal Towing Co. v. Barrale
  595 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-27 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a shipowner's right to limit liability does not justify denying a claimant their common law remedies in state court when the case involves a single claim and the owner demonstrates no prejudice to their right to limitation.
• Offshore OF THE Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Lynch
  741 F.3d 1251· 11th Cir.· 2014-02-03 ·cited 21×
  A vessel owner, Offshore of the Palm Beaches, Inc., appealed a district court order allowing a single claimant, Lisa Lynch, to pursue her personal injury tort claim in state court despite Offshore's invocation of the Limitation of Liability Act in federal court. The Eleventh Circ
• Hines v. United States
  551 F.2d 717· 6th Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 21×
  The later-enacted Rivers and Harbors Act amends the earlier Limitation of Liability Act, meaning a vessel owner cannot limit liability for damages caused by negligent sinking or injury to government works, even if the owner lacked privity or knowledge.
• Petition of Skibs A/S Jolund v. Black Diamond S.S. Corp.
  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.
• In re The Complaint of Everett A. Sisson
  867 F.2d 341· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 19×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no new arguments that would warrant further panel consideration or en banc review.
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. Bonanza Corp. & Republic Ins. Co.
  677 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 18×
• EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd.
  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.
• In re The Complaint of Bankers Tr. Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  651 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the shipowner's petition for limitation of liability should not have been denied based on the astern guardian valve defect, as the owner made reasonable efforts to ensure its repair and lacked privity or knowledge of the defect. The court also found that the t
• Petition of Tex. Co. THE Wash.
  213 F.2d 479· 2d Cir.· 1954-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the limitation of liability statute does not grant a shipowner an advantage over other defendants when the fund is sufficient to cover all claims. The district court retains jurisdiction to handle potential future claims.
• In re the Complaint of Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. State
  720 F.2d 1201· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that claims for damages resulting from a bridge obstruction are barred by a prior dismissal of similar claims against another vessel.
• Matter of the Petition of the United States & Mathiasen's Tanker Indus., Inc.
  259 F.2d 608· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-26 ·cited 15×
  A party that possesses and manages a vessel under a contract, even if not explicitly named a charterer, can be deemed an owner pro hac vice for the purpose of limiting liability under maritime law.
• Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas, S.A. v. Schichau-Unterweser
  955 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds, finding the Netherlands to be an adequate and more convenient forum.
• Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.
  783 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in overruling prior precedent and undermining Supreme Court rulings regarding Louisiana's direct action statute and the Limitation of Liability Act.
• In a Cause for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability. Leslie W. Newton v. Shipman
  718 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single claimant in a limitation of liability proceeding is entitled to a jury trial on their Jones Act claim, and the district court should dissolve its injunction to permit the separate action.
• Pennzoil Producing Co. v. Offshore Express, Inc.
  943 F.2d 1465· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's apportionment of damages based on comparative fault, holding that the vessel owner was partially liable for the allision and that the gas well owner's failure to mitigate damages reduced its recovery.
• In re the Complaint of Bowoon Sangsa Co., Ltd. v. Micronesian Indus. Corp.
  720 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The Palauan High Court, as a court of a foreign country, is not subject to restraining orders issued by United States District Courts in limitation proceedings.
• Matter of the Petition of Lake Tankers Corp. for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liab.
  232 F.2d 573· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the case involves a single limitation proceeding for the owner's indivisible liability on a single indivisible claim, rather than two separate limitation proceedings.
• British Transp. Comm'n v. United States
  230 F.2d 139· 4th Cir.· 1956-02-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying impleader petitions under Admiralty Rule 56, as admiralty courts should provide complete adjudication of all claims in limitation proceedings. The exoneration of the Haiti was affirmed.
• The Valley Line Co. v. Ryan
  771 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred by determining the liability for Ryan's injury, as this deprived him of his right to a jury trial, and that the district court abused its discretion by reinstating the injunction against Ryan's state court proceeding.
• Smith v. United States & Marine Transp. Lines, Inc.
  346 F.2d 449· 4th Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 11×
  The dissent argues that the Suits in Admiralty Act's exclusivity provisions do not bar recovery against the independent contractor, Marine Transport Lines, Inc.
• Hasbro Indus., Inc. v. M/S "ST. Constantine
  705 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that time charterers are not liable for cargo loss due to a ship's unseaworthiness if the charterers exercised due diligence, even if the shipowner did not.
• Harlan F. Fecht and Bessie McAllister v. Makowski
  406 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-03 ·cited 10×
  A shipowner operating the vessel cannot limit liability, and if limitation is impossible, damage claimants are entitled to pursue their claims in a common law forum.
• Petition of H. Leslie Atlass For Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability as The Owner of a Certain Vessel Known as The Yacht SIS v. Atlass
  350 F.2d 592· 7th Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the employer was not liable under the Jones Act for the deaths of two intoxicated seamen who fell into a gap while returning to the vessel, as their intoxication was the sole cause and their actions were not within the scope of employment.
• In re the Complaint of Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A. Ltd. v. Morts
  921 F.2d 775· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Lake of the Ozarks is not a navigable waterway for admiralty jurisdiction purposes, and therefore, the Limitation of Liability Act does not apply.
• Cincinnati GAS & Elec. Co. v. Abel
  533 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-16 ·cited 9×
  A shipowner must file a petition in federal court within six months of receiving notice of a claim to limit liability, even if the defense is raised in a state court answer.
• Anderson v. Nadon
  360 F.2d 53· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that if claimants abandon all claims except one, the district court should dissolve the injunction to allow that single claim to proceed in state court.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. China Union Lines, Ltd.
  306 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court vacated its order granting permission for an interlocutory appeal and remanded the case, finding that the record did not present a controlling question of law suitable for immediate appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• In re Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., Inc. v. Laplace Towing Corp.
  964 F.2d 1571· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action and properly stayed state court proceedings related to the limitation of liability action.
• David Wright Charter Serv. OF N.C. v. Wright
  925 F.2d 783· 4th Cir.· 1991-02-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Limitation of Liability Act does not provide an independent basis for admiralty jurisdiction, and the tort claims did not satisfy the situs test for admiralty jurisdiction.
• In re The Complaint of Bankers Tr. Co. v. Honorable Charles R. Weiner
  775 F.2d 545· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mandamus is inappropriate because the district court did not commit clear legal error by following the appellate court's mandate, even after petitioners withdrew their objections to prior testimony.
• United States v. Soriano
  366 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1966-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Government's negligence in charting was not a proximate cause of the casualty, and the vessel owner was not liable for unseaworthiness due to an inoperable fathometer when other adequate depth-finding equipment was available. The court also held the pilot'
• Murray v. NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  287 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Limitation of Liability Act applies to Jones Act claims and that only the vessels directly involved in the accident need be surrendered for valuation.
• Freedom Marine Sales, LLC v. Sandoval
  2023 WL 5104895· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the petitioner's motions because the ad interim stipulation was deficient in its language regarding security.
• Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal
  402 F.3d 1087· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-09 ·cited 5×
  Paradise Divers, a vessel owner, filed a limitation of liability action more than six months after receiving written notice of a seaman's claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The court held that correspondence from the seaman's counsel in Ma
• Guillory v. Outboard Motor Corp.
  956 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the waterway in question is not navigable.