-
272 F.2d 873·
2d Cir.·
1959-11-30
·cited 8×
-
255 F.2d 628·
7th Cir.·
1958-05-16
·cited 8×
The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the decree of liability against the Foo and its owners.
-
245 F.2d 306·
8th Cir.·
1957-06-20
·cited 8×
The court held that the trial court's findings of fact regarding the visibility of the storm and the petitioner's negligence were not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the decree holding the boat owner liable.
-
894 F.2d 804·
6th Cir.·
1990-01-18
·cited 7×
Prejudgment interest is available in general maritime wrongful death actions absent peculiar circumstances, and mutual fault does not constitute such a circumstance. Non-dependent parents cannot recover for loss of society.
-
975 F.2d 379·
7th Cir.·
1992-09-17
·cited 6×
A shipowner's claim for limitation of liability under the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the underlying claim is for negligent entrustment, as such a claim inherently involves the owner's privity or knowled
-
730 F.2d 159·
4th Cir.·
1984-03-22
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court erred in finding that Hellenic's 'parallel indexing' constituted 'equivalent systematic observation' under Rule 7 and that Hellenic's first port turn did not violate Rule 19(d)(i).
-
219 F.2d 904·
6th Cir.·
1955-02-16
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the district court's findings of gross negligence and denial of limitation of liability, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the Fourth Marie's operation, including its use of automatic pilot without a lookout in congested waters, constitute
-
190 F.2d 533·
7th Cir.·
1951-06-22
·cited 6×
The owner of a boat is entitled to limitation of liability for an accident caused by his minor son's negligence if the owner was not personally at fault or lacked knowledge of the circumstances, especially when the son was experienced and trained.
-
151 F.2d 884·
2d Cir.·
1945-11-02
·cited 6×
The court held that the petition's allegations regarding the facts and circumstances of the claim were sufficient, but the timeliness of the filing required amendment.
-
897 F.2d 58·
2d Cir.·
1990-02-23
·cited 4×
The Limitation of Liability Act applies to pleasure boats, but summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the owner's privity or knowledge of the operator's incompetence.
-
613 F. Supp. 1428·
M.D. Fla.·
1985-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that both the pilot and master of the Robert Watt Miller were negligent, and the dredge Alaska violated navigation rules, contributing to the collision and deaths. Chevron Transport's failure to ensure proper dissemination of navigational information meant it could
-
745 F.2d 995·
5th Cir.·
1984-11-09
·cited 4×
-
566 F. Supp. 962·
M.D. Fla.·
1983-03-14
·cited 4×
The court held that the shipowner's negligence in allowing excessive speed under poor visibility conditions, coupled with known radar interference, precluded limitation of liability.
-
459 F. Supp. 2d 1275·
S.D. Fla.·
2006-10-23
·cited 3×
The court held that a release signed by an adult is enforceable, but a parental pre-injury release for a for-profit activity is not enforceable against a minor. The doctrine of unseaworthiness does not apply to passengers.
-
709 F. Supp. 1123·
S.D. Fla.·
1989-02-24
·cited 3×
The owner of a vessel is entitled to limit liability under the Limitation Act if they were not in privity or had knowledge of the negligence or unseaworthiness that caused the accident, even if they delegated management to a third party.
-
659 F. Supp. 89·
S.D. Fla.·
1987-03-27
·cited 2×
The court held that a letter from claimant's counsel did not constitute sufficient notice to start the six-month limitations period for exoneration and/or limitation of liability, and that summary disposition of the limitation issue was inappropriate without factual development.
-
748 F.2d 622·
11th Cir.·
1984-12-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the value of pending freight for limitation purposes is determined by the entire round trip voyage, but remanded for a hearing on whether additional security is required for personal injury claims under section 183(b).
-
485 F.2d 304·
2d Cir.·
1973-09-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving lack of privity or knowledge regarding the negligence that caused the explosion, and therefore, the case must be remanded for a new trial.
-
287 F.2d 507·
1st Cir.·
1961-03-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in finding the petitioner negligent based on improper reasons, and that the petitioner made a prima facie case regarding the clutch repair.
-
742 F. Supp. 1143·
S.D. Fla.·
1990-07-20
·cited 1×
Anheuser-Busch is not entitled to limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act because it was not a bareboat charterer of the vessel involved in the accident.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-12
The court recommended granting the motion for default judgment, finding the Limitation of Liability Act applies and the petitioner sufficiently pleaded facts to rebut the presumption of negligence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-13
The court granted the petitioner's motion to approve the ad interim stipulation for costs and value with a letter of undertaking, and to enter monition and injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-20
The court held that the petitioner's motion for an order approving a letter of undertaking and directing issuance of monition and injunction is denied without prejudice because the petitioner failed to file an ad interim stipulation of value.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-11-12
The court recommended granting the claimant's motion to stay the limitation of liability action and dissolve the injunction, allowing the claimant to pursue a negligence action in Florida state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-31
The court granted the petitioner's motion for exoneration from or limitation of liability, approving an ad interim stipulation as security and ordering a stay of other proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-11
The court held that an amended ad interim stipulation, backed by an insurer's letter of undertaking, constitutes sufficient security under the Limitation of Liability Act and Supplemental Rule F, and granted the petition for exoneration or limitation of liability.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-02
The court held that the claimant's statement of claims sufficiently alleged notice of dangerous conditions and that the claims for vicarious liability, negligent training, and negligent entrustment were not duplicative, thus denying the motion to dismiss. The court also denied th
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-14
The court held that an ad interim stipulation without an accompanying letter of undertaking from the insurer does not constitute "approved security" under the Limitation of Liability Act and Supplemental Rule F.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-03-06
The court granted the claimant's motion to stay the limitation action and lift the injunction on the state court action, allowing the claimant to proceed in state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-16
The court held that a single claimant may proceed in their chosen forum, provided they file stipulations protecting the vessel owner's right to limited liability adjudication, and denied the motion without prejudice for insufficient stipulations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-09
The court denied the petitioner's motions to approve an ad interim stipulation and issue a monition and injunction because the stipulation lacked a guarantee of payment from a surety, failing to meet the requirements for adequate security under the Limitation of Liability Act.
-
11th Cir.·
2023-08-02
Skanska USA, owner of barges that broke loose during Hurricane Sally in 2020 and damaged the Pensacola Bay Bridge, sought to limit its liability under the federal Limitation Act and argued it was entitled to have a federal court adjudicate the merits of all claims against it befo
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-28
Goodloe Marine hired Caillou Island Towing Company (CIT) to tow its dredge from Texas to Florida, but the dredge sank in the Gulf of Mexico on January 22, 2020, after CIT sailed into heavy seas despite available weather forecasts predicting waves of four to seven feet and Captain
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-27
The court held that the vessel owner, through its owner-operator, had privity or knowledge of the events, making limitation of liability impossible under the Limitation Act.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-14
In a collision between two recreational fishing vessels in dense fog off the coast of Naples, Florida, the court found Dr. Julie Leonard solely liable for the accident because she operated her vessel at 29 mph in severely limited visibility (75-100 feet), violating federal mariti
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-22
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the vessel owner's negligence and privity, precluding summary judgment on the Limitation Act claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-08-10
The court granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, approving their Letter of Undertaking and directing the Clerk to issue a monition and injunction, allowing them to proceed with their limitation of liability action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-28
An explosion and fire destroyed a motorboat at a fuel dock at Bahia Mar Marina in Fort Lauderdale on January 17, 2021, injuring the boat's owner Reichen Kuhl and damaging a nearby yacht. Kuhl sought to limit his liability under federal maritime law, while the yacht's owner sued K
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-12
The court held that a claimant's stipulations adequately protected the vessel owner's right to limit liability, allowing the claimant to pursue her action in state court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-05
A claimant who is not the owner of a vessel cannot obtain an injunction under the Limitation of Liability Act to stay state court proceedings against them.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-03-04
A prior settlement agreement and release, which released the defendant from all manner of actions and causes of action in admiralty, bars the plaintiff's subsequent petition for limitation of liability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-12
The court granted the claimants' motion to lift the stay, finding that the stipulations provided were sufficient to protect the vessel owner's right to litigate its claim for limited liability exclusively in admiralty court.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-29
The court held that an ad interim stipulation for security in a limitation of liability action must identify a surety or be accompanied by a letter of undertaking to guarantee payment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-19
The court held that a contractual claim for attorneys' fees by an indemnification claimant does not prevent a damage claimant from pursuing their case in state court, as such fees are not subject to limitation under the Limitation Act.
-
850 F. Supp. 2d 653·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-02-04
The liability waiver signed by the passenger is unenforceable under 46 U.S.C. § 30509 because it attempts to limit the cruise line's liability for negligence. Royal Caribbean is not exonerated from liability for failing to provide a competent jet ski operator, and its liability i
-
767 F. Supp. 2d 1316·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-02-10
The court held that the stationary dredge pipeline was not at fault for the allision, and the moving vessel (MISS JIGGS) was presumed to be at fault under the Oregon Rule, a presumption not rebutted by the claimants.
-
494 F. Supp. 2d 1339·
S.D. Fla.·
2007-06-18
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a limitation of liability action when the underlying state claims, if proven, would necessarily establish the vessel owner's privity or knowledge, thus precluding limitation.
-
350 F. Supp. 2d 975·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-04-27
The court granted summary judgment for Hood on Omne's claims, finding they were personal contract claims not subject to limitation. The court denied summary judgment on Williams Marine's limitation of liability claim due to disputed material facts.
-
114 F. Supp. 2d 1301·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-09-08
The Park System Resource Protection Act (PSRPA), being later enacted and in direct conflict with the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act of 1851 (Limitation Act), supersedes the Limitation Act for claims arising under the PSRPA.
-
909 F.2d 809·
5th Cir.·
1990-08-22
The court held that the owners of the M/V VICKI LYNNE were not entitled to limitation of liability because they had privity and knowledge of the substandard tow lights, which were a contributing factor to the collision.