Privity Or Knowledge

104 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.
• Pershing Auto Rentals, Inc. v. Gaffney
  279 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-15 ·cited 55×
  In a multiple-claim, inadequate-fund limitation proceeding, an admiralty court cannot modify its traditional injunction to permit some claimants to establish their claims initially in a state common law court.
• Complaint of the Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. United States
  557 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Limitation Act of 1851 is inapplicable to a civil action by the United States to recover wreck removal expenses from a party that negligently caused a vessel to sink, obstructing a navigable waterway under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
• Emerson v. Holloway Concrete Prods. Co., Inc.
  282 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-29 ·cited 48×
  The dissent argues that the Florida Death Statute, by its plain language, allows recovery for maritime death if the decedent could have recovered in admiralty, and that the majority incorrectly applied prior case law instead of the statute.
• THE Severance. THE Stone 6. Diamond S. S. Transp. Corp. v. Peoples Sav. Bank & Tr. Co.
  152 F.2d 916· 4th Cir.· 1945-12-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the respondent, R. R. Stone, was liable for the damage caused by the collision due to the negligence of his pilot and the furnishing of an incompetent tug, and that his petition for limitation of liability should be denied due to privity and knowledge.
• Walker v. Harris
  335 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 47×
  A vessel is unseaworthy if it cannot withstand reasonably anticipated weather conditions, and a lifeboat must be adequately equipped and stowed to be considered seaworthy.
• Avera v. Fla. Towing Corp.
  322 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-22 ·cited 47×
  The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review considered whether claimants were discharged for misconduct connected with their work, reversing a prior decision that held they were disqualified due to a labor dispute.
• 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
• 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
• Guillot v. Cenac Towing Co., Inc.
  366 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that direct actions against the shipowner's liability insurer must be stayed pending resolution of the limitation of liability proceeding, but a stipulation is required to preserve claimants' rights regarding actions against corporate officers and their insurers.
• 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.
• Admiral Towing Co. v. Theo Woolen and Dorothy E. Cone
  290 F.2d 641· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to a seaman whose own negligence created the unseaworthy condition.
• 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.
• 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.
• Empire Seafoods, Inc. v. Anderson
  398 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-18 ·cited 31×
• United States v. Sandra & Dennis Fishing Corp.
  372 F.2d 189· 1st Cir.· 1967-01-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the Coast Guard was liable for the negligence of its captain in navigating the vessel, it was entitled to limit its liability. The district court's denial of limitation was reversed.
• Austerberry v. United States
  169 F.2d 583· 6th Cir.· 1948-08-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in admiralty cases, and the circumstances warranted an inference of negligence by the government, reversing the lower court's exoneration.
• In re the Complaint of Oswego Barge Corp. v. Oswego Barge Corp.
  664 F.2d 327· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-20 ·cited 24×
  The FWPCA preempts non-FWPCA maritime claims for cleanup costs of U.S. waters, but not claims for reimbursement of foreign cleanup costs.
• Steuart Transp. Co. v. Allied Towing Corp.
  596 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides the exclusive remedy for federal oil spill removal costs, and that state statutes are not preempted by the federal act. It also affirmed that the tug was not liable and that Steuart could not offset its containm
• United States v. Ohio Valley Co., Inc.
  510 F.2d 1184· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The Limited Liability Act of 1851 does not apply to limit liability under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for damages caused to U.S. property, and an indemnity agreement substitutes for the vessel itself.
• United States v. M/V BIG SAM
  681 F.2d 432· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the owner and bareboat charterer of a negligent, non-discharging vessel are jointly and severally liable under § 1321(g) for oil spill cleanup costs, and that an in rem remedy against the vessel and a maritime tort claim are not preempted by the Act.
• 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.
• TUG Raven & Vermillion Towing Corp. v. Mrs. Myrtle Lucille Goodman Trexler
  419 F.2d 536· 4th Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the mate's use of an unapproved flashlight caused the fire was clearly erroneous, and that Crown was solely responsible for the incident due to an unreasonable accumulation of gasoline vapors.
• Petition of Oskar Tiedemann & Co. for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liab. Oskar Tiedemann & Co.
  289 F.2d 237· 3d Cir.· 1961-04-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the United States and Mathiasen were not entitled to limitation of liability due to privity and knowledge of negligence regarding the Mission's explosive tanks, and that Tiedemann (owner of Elna II) was not entitled to exoneration but was entitled to limitatio
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. Bonanza Corp. & Republic Ins. Co.
  677 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 18×
• Petition of Paul F. Wood for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability
  230 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-16 ·cited 18×
  Seamen's claims for unseaworthiness are subject to the Limitation Act, and the owner's privity or knowledge must be litigated in admiralty court.
• 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
• Suzuki OF Orange Park, Inc. v. Shubert
  86 F.3d 1060· 11th Cir.· 1996-07-01 ·cited 15×
  Suzuki of Orange Park, Inc., a recreational watercraft dealer, sought to limit its liability under the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act after a Seadoo Explorer it owned struck passenger Steven Shubert during a customer demonstration event, causing serious injuries. The
• In re the Complaint of Patton-Tully Transp. Co. v. Ratliff
  797 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the deceased employee was a Jones Act seaman and that his employer could not limit its liability because it had privity or knowledge of the conditions causing the accident. The court also upheld the damage award.
• In re the complaint of the United States v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal.
  495 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined mutual fault and that the United States could not limit its liability. It reversed the denial of contribution, allowing Standard to seek contribution from the United States for property damage claims.
• Republic OF France & Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. United States
  290 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 15×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and the judgment should be affirmed.
• Complaint of Charles N. Wasson
  495 F.2d 571· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the vessel owner and charterer were liable for damages due to the vessel's unseaworthiness, and that the railroad company was also liable for failing to maintain adequate pier protection as required by its War Department permit.
• Petition OF United States. THE F. S. 231. United States v. Black Diamond S. S. Corp. the Midland Victory
  178 F.2d 243· 2d Cir.· 1949-11-21 ·cited 14×
  Both vessels were found at fault for the collision due to negligent navigation and inattentiveness, and the United States failed to prove it lacked privity or knowledge regarding the F.S. 231's incompetent crew, thus denying limitation of liability.
• In re Young v. Young
  872 F.2d 176· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 13×
  The Limitation Act applies to pleasure boats, and a prior circuit precedent holding so remains controlling.
• Arceline M. Verdin v. C & B Boat Co., Inc.
  860 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, FBL's liability was not limited, and certain damage calculations were incorrect. The court affirmed the district court's findings of negligence and unseaworthiness but remanded for recalculation
• 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 Interstate Towing Co. v. Stissi
  717 F.2d 752· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in its apportionment of fault and in its legal holding that Furey's fault was solely derived from Stissi's. The court affirmed the denial of exoneration and limitation of liability but remanded for reconsideration of fault apportionmen
• In re the Complaint of MAC Towing Inc. v. Am. Commercial Lines
  670 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's factual findings regarding the collision and allocation of fault were not clearly erroneous, and that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability.
• Nuccio v. Royal Indem. Co.
  415 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the owner's negligence in entrusting the boat to an inexperienced operator precluded limiting liability to the vessel's value.
• In re the Complaint of Villers Seafood Co., Inc. v. Vest
  813 F.2d 339· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the ladder was unseaworthy and that the shipowner had privity or knowledge of the unseaworthiness, thus reversing the district court's judgment and denying limitation of liability.
• 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.
• Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Lynch. the James A. Dubbs
  173 F.2d 281· 6th Cir.· 1949-03-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying an injunction to permit a Jones Act claim to proceed in state court, provided the claimant waives res judicata on the issue of limited liability.
• State OF Or. v. TUG Go-Getter
  468 F.2d 1270· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 10×
• 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.
• Oliver J. Olson & Co. v. Luckenbach S.S. Co.
  279 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of mutual fault was not clearly erroneous and that the owner of the Olson was entitled to limit its liability.
• Hutchinson v. Dickie
  162 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1947-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of negligence and that the decree awarding damages for wrongful death rested on speculation and conjecture.
• Petition of Sumner A. Long
  439 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the charterer and agent failed to prove the vessel's seaworthiness and were not entitled to exoneration or limitation of liability due to overloading, which was a substantial cause of the disaster and known to them.
• Federazione Italiana DEI Corsorzi Agrari v. Mandask Compania de Vapores
  388 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of limitation of liability and the finding of unseaworthiness, holding that the shipowner failed to prove due diligence in making the vessel seaworthy and was privy to the unseaworthy condition.