Saving To Suitors Clause

91 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc.
  867 F.2d 1318· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 185×
  The court held that a shipowner's liability for a passenger's injury requires actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition, and that equitable estoppel to assert a contractual limitation period requires the plaintiff to file suit within a reasonable time after dis
• Doucette v. Vincent
  194 F.2d 834· 1st Cir.· 1952-02-05 ·cited 101×
  The court held that evidence of a better appliance is not admissible to establish the legal standard of care in negligence or unseaworthiness claims, and that federal courts have jurisdiction over maritime claims brought on the law side under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even without divers
• Frank Irey, JR., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  519 F.2d 1200· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-04 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the Seventh Amendment mandates a jury trial for penalty proceedings under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
• Jordine v. Walling
  185 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-10 ·cited 68×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a civil action for maintenance and cure absent diversity of citizenship, even if joined with a Jones Act claim, because maintenance and cure is a non-federal maritime claim.
• Armstrong v. Ala. Power Co.
  667 F.2d 1385· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 43×
  A federal court lacks removal jurisdiction over a maritime "saving to suitors" case when the only basis for federal jurisdiction is the Suits in Admiralty Act, and claims for contribution and indemnity are premature until underlying liability is determined.
• Azzopardi v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co.
  742 F.2d 890· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 36×
• Mrs. Joan Francis LAW v. SEA Drilling Corp. & Cont'l Oil Corp.
  523 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that recovery for conscious pain and suffering and loss of society is permissible under general maritime law for deaths on the high seas, rejecting the restrictive pecuniary loss standard of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA).
• Exxon Corp. v. Chick KAM Choo
  817 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 34×
  The federal court should not interfere with Texas state courts' determination of forum convenience and the propriety of entertaining a case.
• Pizzitolo v. Electro-Coal Transfer Corp.
  812 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 34×
  A harbor worker engaged in ship repair, even if performing substantial work on vessels, is covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and is therefore ineligible for seaman status under the Jones Act.
• Higa v. Transocean Airlines
  230 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1955-12-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a new issue raised for the first time on rehearing, which could have been addressed earlier, will not be considered.
• Petition of Moran Transp. Corp. Moran Transp. Corp. v. Mellino's Adm'x. THE Moran NO. 96
  185 F.2d 386· 2d Cir.· 1950-11-21 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the claimant to pursue her claim in state court without compelling her to litigate the limitation of liability issue in federal court, even with an additional claim filed.
• Richards v. Blake Builders Supply Inc.
  528 F.2d 745· 4th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 30×
  The Court held that admiralty jurisdiction extends to controversies arising from the operation of small pleasure craft on navigable waters, despite the lack of commercial maritime connection, based on prior Supreme Court precedent.
• Fermin Fonseca Flores v. Prann
  282 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1960-09-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Puerto Rico's Workmen's Accident Compensation Act applies to injuries sustained by seamen on its territorial waters, precluding claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
• United States v. Matson Nav. Co.
  201 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Admiralty Extension Act of 1948, which extends admiralty jurisdiction to damage caused by vessels on navigable waters to property on land, applies retroactively to claims arising before its enactment, and that damage to a dike is a maritime tort.
• Leslie v. Carnival Corp.
  22 So. 3d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-01-02 ·cited 23×
  This case addresses whether Carnival Cruise Lines' forum-selection clause in passenger tickets, requiring all disputes to be litigated in federal court in Miami rather than state courts, is enforceable under federal maritime law. The court held the clause is valid and enforceable
• In re S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  678 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a shipowner's claims for indemnity and contribution against another party are not necessarily derivative of the injured party's claim against the shipowner, and thus may expose the shipowner to liability beyond the limitation fund if not properly stipulated.
• 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
• Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese di Assicurazioni E Riassicurazoni v. Achille Lauro
  712 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 21×
  The court held that an order staying an action for breach of a time charter pending arbitration is appealable, and that the arbitration clause is enforceable under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
• Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc.
  423 F.2d 916· 1st Cir.· 1970-04-07 ·cited 20×
  A shipowner is not liable for unseaworthiness arising after a demise charter, and no lien against the vessel arises without an in personam claim.
• Rountree v. A. P. Moller S.S. Co.
  218 So. 2d 771· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-02-06 ·cited 19×
  This case addresses the interpretation of Florida's Motorboat Safety Law regarding civil liability for negligent boat operation. The court reversed a motion to dismiss that had interpreted the statute to exclude corporate boat owners from liability, holding that the statutory ter
• Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Gregorio Zareno
  712 So. 2d 791· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-06-24 ·cited 18×
  Norwegian Cruise Lines sought certiorari review challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to strike a maritime plaintiff's punitive damages claim for failure to comply with Florida's punitive damages statute. The court held that Florida Statute Section 768.72's procedura
• Ford Sosebee v. Rath
  893 F.2d 54· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 18×
  An award of attorney's fees pursuant to a territorial statute is inappropriate in a case applying federal substantive admiralty law.
• Pryor v. Am. President Lines
  520 F.2d 974· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that for the Admiralty Extension Act to apply, the ship or its appurtenances must proximately cause an injury occurring on shore, and the doctrine of unseaworthiness regarding defective packaging applies only once goods are on board the ship.
• Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha and Norton
  221 F.2d 615· 2d Cir.· 1955-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 'saving to suitors' clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 intended to save common law remedies from the grant of admiralty jurisdiction itself, not merely from its exclusiveness.
• 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
• Armada Coal Exp., Inc. v. Interbulk, Ltd.
  726 F.2d 1566· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that claims for wrongful attachment and conversion arising from a foreign attachment writ are not subject to arbitration under a broad arbitration clause in a charter party, and that diversity jurisdiction exists despite imperfect pleading.
• Southworth Mach. Co., Inc. v. F/V Corey Pride
  994 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-02 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, holding that state law attorney's fees provisions are inapplicable in admiralty cases when they conflict with federal maritime law, and that the buyer was liable for the unpaid contract price of the engine.
• Guidry v. Durkin
  834 F.2d 1465· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 14×
  A federal employee sued for a maritime tort occurring on a public vessel cannot bring suit in state court, as exclusive jurisdiction lies with federal district courts under the Suits in Admiralty Act and Public Vessels Act.
• J. B. Effenson Co. v. Three Bays Corp., Ltd.
  238 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the one-year limitation period incorporated from the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act into the charter party is valid and enforceable, despite a Florida statute declaring such stipulations void.
• Wilsey Poirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co.
  648 F.2d 1063· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-26 ·cited 13×
  An order denying remand of a case removed to federal court is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and mandamus is not appropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
• Peter v. Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp.
  903 F.2d 935· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a tort action against a borrowing employer is barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) if the employee is considered a borrowed servant under LHWCA.
• In re the Complaint of Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart Maats Christina B.V. v. Fran Corona and Ana Corona
  836 F.2d 750· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 12×
• Nutt v. Loomis Hydraulic Testing Co.
  552 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer (Loomis) is liable for contribution to the other vessel (Union) based on the negligence of the employer's employee (decedent), even though the employee's negligence had already been factored into the wrongful death award.
• Vance W. Williams v. Tide Water Associated OIL Co.
  227 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1955-11-25 ·cited 12×
  A seaman can combine claims for unseaworthiness and negligence in a single civil suit under diversity jurisdiction, preserving the right to a jury trial.
• 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.
• Dr. Eugene v. Still
  337 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-10-08 ·cited 11×
  State courts have jurisdiction over in personam maritime claims under the 'saving to suitors' clause, even if the claim involves a maritime contract or tort, provided the state court has jurisdiction and the remedy sought is a common law one.
• Sinclair v. Soniform, Inc.
  935 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims against a ship's crew for negligence during a scuba diving excursion fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction, and claims against equipment manufacturers arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, thus falling under supplemental jurisdiction.
• In re the Complaint of Vatican Shrimp Co., Inc. v. Solis
  820 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the section 185 petition as untimely, that the order of remand is not reviewable, but that the district court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions.
• 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.
• Victrix S.S. Co., S.A. v. Salen DRY Cargo A.B.
  825 F.2d 709· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that comity requires deference to Swedish bankruptcy proceedings, vacating the attachment of funds and affirming the award of attorney's fees for wrongful attachment.
• O'Neill v. Schoenbrod
  355 So. 2d 440· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-02-07 ·cited 9×
• Ellenwood v. Exxon Shipping Co.
  984 F.2d 1270· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act does not preempt state handicap discrimination claims, nor does admiralty law preempt such claims when they do not conflict with fundamental maritime principles. However, a contract claim based on a policy manual provision
• Durden v. Exxon Corp.
  803 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Jones Act claim was properly dismissed due to a valid release, and that the remaining admiralty claims were correctly decided by the judge without a jury because the plaintiff elected admiralty jurisdiction.
• ALI v. The Offshore Co.
  753 F.2d 1327· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a choice of law determination, and that a forum non conveniens analysis was required.
• 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.
• Bernadette Aaron v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburg
  876 F.2d 1157· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) is not so completely preemptive as to create federal question jurisdiction under the Avco exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.
• Jefferson Barracks Marine Serv., Inc. v. Casey
  763 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the state court wrongful death action, as the claimants' stipulation preserved the vessel owners' right to limit liability.
• Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. the Unidentified
  691 F. Supp. 1377· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the resolution of title to the res in federal court without state consent, thus a preliminary injunction cannot issue in the in rem action. The removed state law action must be remanded.
• Alleman v. Bunge Corp.
  756 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that an appeal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) is only permissible if the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction has been invoked. Since the plaintiffs chose to bring their action in state court under the savings to suitors clause, and the action was removed to fed