Negligence Under 33 U.S.C. § 905(B)

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

• Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co. (D.C. Civil Action No. 74-1143)
  554 F.2d 1237· 3d Cir.· 1977-04-25 ·cited 61×
  The court held that amended section 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is constitutional and that land-based negligence principles, not maritime non-delegable duties, apply to shipowner liability.
• Anuszewski v. Dynamic Mariners Corp.
  540 F.2d 757· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act require land-based principles of tort law to apply to longshoremen's claims against vessels, eliminating the unseaworthiness remedy.
• Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan
  841 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the vessel owner was liable for the longshoreman's injuries due to actual knowledge of a malfunctioning winch and the stevedore's inability to remedy it. Certain damage awards were found excessive and subject to remittitur or a new trial.
• Lauro De Los Santos v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.
  598 F.2d 480· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-01 ·cited 44×
  A shipowner can be held liable for injuries to a longshoreman if the owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition and failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the longshoreman.
• Hebron v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  634 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a borrowed employee of Union Oil, making his exclusive remedy worker's compensation under the LHWCA, and that neither the vessel owner nor Union Oil were negligent.
• Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd.
  651 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the vessel owner and time-charterer owed a duty to the longshoreman to protect against concealed dangers created by a foreign stevedore, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court further held that the time-charterer was prim
• Harris v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A.
  730 F.2d 296· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a shipowner can be liable for injuries caused by negligently stowed cargo, even if the danger was obvious to the longshoremen, if the shipowner knew or should have known of the condition.
• Woods v. Sammisa Co., Ltd.
  873 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that two of the three theories of liability submitted to the jury should not have been presented, requiring a new trial. The court found insufficient evidence for the 'hidden danger' and third Scindia duty claims.
• DI Rago v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc.
  636 F.2d 860· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on superseding cause, as the stevedore's actions could reasonably be found to be a superseding cause of the injury.
• Bjaranson v. Botelho Shipping Corp.
  873 F.2d 1204· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of negligence against the shipowner under the applicable duties of care, and therefore, the defendant was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Colomb v. Texaco, Inc.
  736 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the drilling barge ERIS was a vessel in navigation and the plaintiff was a seaman as a matter of law, reversing the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on these issues. The court also held that the exclusion of inflation testimony required a remand for
• Teply v. Mobil OIL Corp. & the Unnamed Barge
  859 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 10×
  A vessel owner is not liable under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) for injuries caused by obvious dangers created by the stevedore's equipment or circumstances unknown to the vessel owner.
• Derr v. Kawasaki Kisen K.K.
  835 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 10×
  A vessel has no general duty to supervise or inspect the work of stevedores, and can only be held negligent for injuries from improperly stowed cargo if it breaches specific duties outlined in Scindia, which requires actual knowledge of a non-obvious danger.
• Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp.
  694 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant vessel owner owed no duty to the plaintiff under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) because the injury was caused by a transitory condition created by independent contractors over whom the owner retained no control and had no knowledge.
• Polizzi v. M/V Zephyros II Monrovia
  860 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to find for the vessel owner, and the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or a new trial.
• Shea v. Rev-Lyn Contracting Co., Inc.
  868 F.2d 515· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding that admiralty jurisdiction existed over the plaintiff's negligence claim.
• Roach v. M/V Aqua Grace
  857 F.2d 1575· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the vessel owner met its duty of care under the LHWCA and Scindia standard, and thus summary judgment for the owner was appropriate.
• Barnett v. Bernhard Howaldt
  757 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of specific facts to create a genuine issue for trial regarding the shipowner's or charterer's negligence in rigging or spotting the cargo booms, or any defect in the vessel's equipment.
• Lawson v. United States
  605 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipowner's failure to exercise reasonable care to protect a longshoreman from a known dangerous condition on the vessel, despite having control over the work area and actual notice, constituted negligence under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compe
• Hayes v. Wilh Wilhelmsen Enters., Ltd.
  50 F. Supp. 221· M.D. Fla.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 1×
  The time charterer is not liable for injuries caused by a hydraulic fluid leak from the vessel's cargo doors, as this condition is not cargo-related and falls under the owner's responsibility to maintain the vessel's equipment.
• Bernell RAY and Armanda Ray v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.
  805 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-08
  The court held that the employer's claim for benefits paid to an injured longshoreman is an independent cause of action under the Burnside doctrine, separate from the longshoreman's claim against the shipowner.
• Robertson v. Jeffboat, Inc.
  651 F.2d 434· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-19
  The court held that a shipbuilder employer's knowledge of dangerous conditions is attributable to its capacity as vessel owner, establishing negligence under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b).