The Cargo Letter
|
The Cargo Letter |
|
Section A: Trade, Financial & Inland News
| Section B: FF World Air News |
Section C: FF World Ocean News | Section D: FF in Cyberspace |
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris
U.S. Supreme Court
MARITIME LAW (Negligent Breach of Maritime Duty of Care
Actionable When it Causes Death) U.S. Supreme Court held (opinion by Scalia;
unanimously as to parts I, II-A, and II-B-1, 6-3 as to part II-B-2; concurrence
in part by Ginsburg) that the negligent breach of a general maritime duty
of care is actionable when it causes death.
Garris alleged that her son died as a result of injuries
sustained while performing sandblasting aboard vessel
berthed in the navigable waters of the U.S. Garris
asserted the injuries were caused by negligence of Norfolk Shipbuilding
& Drydock Corp. & sought damages under general maritime law. The
District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim,
stating that no cause of action exists, under general maritime law, for
death resulting from negligence. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that negligent breach of a
general maritime duty of care is actionable when it causes death. The Court
reasoned that no rational basis within maritime law exists for denying recovery
for death, while allowing recovery for non-deadly injury on the basis
of negligence. Further, federal maritime statutes do not so occupy the field
as to preclude a maritime cause of action for death based upon negligence.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-346.html
United States v. Mead Corp.
U.S. Supreme Court
No. 99-1434 - The Long Awaited Customs Ruling
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Customs Classification Ruling Entitled to
Limited Deference) U.S. Supreme Court held 8-1 (Opinion by Souter,
dissent by Scalia) that a tariff classification ruling by the U.S. Customs
Service does not deserve judicial deference pursuant to Chevron v. Natural
Resources Defense Counsil, but is eligible to limited deference depending on its
persuasiveness.
Mead Corporation imports notebooks, day-planners, and letter
pads that were originally subject to a 4% tariff. U.S.
Customs issued a letter ruling that day-planners fell into
a "bound diary" category & would be subject to a higher
tariff. Mead disagreed with the ruling and filed suit in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
held that the ruling at issue was not entitled to Chevron deference. The
U.S. Supreme Court vacated & remanded, holding that, while the Customs
ruling at issue did not have the force of law that required
Chevron deference, it was entitled to respect depending on
its persuasiveness pursuant to Skidmore.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-1434.html
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Tropical Shipping
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
June 19, 2001
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"): to invoke
COGSA's package limitation,
the carrier must satisfy 2 preconditions: 1st, the carrier
must give the
shipper adequate notice of the $500 limitation by including a
"clause
paramount" in the B/L that expressly adopts the
provisions of COGSA; & 2nd,
the carrier must give the shipper a fair opportunity to avoid
COGSA section
4(5)'s limitation by declaring excess value; since the B/L
provided
sufficient notice of the limitation of liability &
provided an opportunity to
declare excess value, COGSA's package limitation applied to
the shipment; the
district court correctly defined a mobile television stage as
the relevant
COGSA package & applied the $500 package limitation to a
claim for its total
destruction since the B/L legibly & clearly described the
stage as "one unit"
or "package" and the shipper did not declare the
value of the stage on the
bill of lading; Marine Insurance: Florida law applies in
resolving the
insurers "other insurance" dispute; when 2 insurance
policies contain "other
insurance" clauses, the clauses are deemed mutually
repugnant & both insurers
share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their
policy limits.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/11thfiremans.html
Herman Family Revocable Trust v. The Vessel Teddy Bear
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 13, 2001
Admiralty Jurisdiction: since there was no admiralty
jurisdiction over this
dispute concerning aborted contract to sell a yacht, the court
lacked subject
matter jurisdiction & had no power to adjudicate either
the in rem admiralty
claims or the supplemental state law claims.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thteddybear.pdf
Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 12, 2001
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): the
OCSLA applies to an injury
suffered on the Fal-Rig #85 since it was jacked-up over the
OCS at the time
of Demette's injury & was therefore a device
"temporarily attached to the
seabed" for the purpose of drilling for oil under section
1333(a)(1) of the
Act; further, since the contract for oil drilling services
& the injury that
invoked it were maritime in nature, maritime law applies of
its own force and
Louisiana state law does not apply; Longshore & Harbor
Workers' Act/Indemnity
: since section 1333(b) of the OCSLA extends the LHWCA to
non-seamen employed
on the OCS, Demette is entitled to LHWCA benefits "by
virtue" of the OCSLA;
in such a case, the LHWCA provides that reciprocal indemnity
provisions
between the employer and the vessel owner are enforceable,
although section
905(b) of the LHWCA ordinarily bars the enforcement of
indemnity agreements
between employers and vessel owners; thus, since Demette's
employer and the
vessel owner each promised to indemnify the other, the
indemnification is
reciprocal and therefore valid & enforceable.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thdemette.html
Commercial Union Insurance v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 11, 2001
Marine Insurance/Admiralty Jurisdiction: a claim under an open
marine cargo
insurance policy covering a shipment of frozen shrimp from
Bangkok, Thailand
to Philadelphia via California & Chicago was within the
court's admiralty
jurisdiction although the loss did occur during the Chicago to
Philadelphia
overland portion of the shipment; the cargo owner's claim of
loss under the
policy was properly denied by the district court under
admiralty law since
the loss resulted from a failure to attach a generator to the
refrigerated
container, which was not a loss due to "derangement or
breakdown of the
refrigerating machinery," as the term is used in marine
insurance policies.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/10thseafood.html
Espinal v. Royal Caribbean Cruises
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
June 8, 2001
Maintenance & Cure: the district court erred in relying on
general maritime
law, rather than terms of the applicable Collective Bargaining
Agreement
("CBA"), in calculating the amount of unearned sick
wages due plaintiff
seaman.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/11thespinal.html
ConAgra Inc. v. Indian River Towing Co.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 8, 2001
Damages: proving loss-of-use damages in an admiralty case
involves 2
elements: 1st, a vessel owner must prove that profits have
actually been, or
may be reasonably supposed to have been, lost; and 2nd, the
amount of lost
profits must be proven with reasonable certainty; owner of a
fleet of barges
in this case met this burden by showing that there was a ready
market for its
barges and that it had no spare barges available to substitute
for the
damaged barges; Damages (Prejudgment Interest): prejudgment
interest was
properly awarded for the loss-of-use claim since it is awarded
in admiralty
suits to ensure full compensation for the injured party &
should be granted
unless there are exceptional or peculiar circumstances.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/8thconagra.pdf
Louis Dreyfus v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
June 7, 2001
Arbitration/Charter Parties: the charter's New York
arbitration clause, which
provided that any "dispute arising from the making,
performance or
termination of this Charter Party" be arbitrated, was a
broad arbitration
clause; thus, by implicating the rights of Owner & the
duties of Charterer
under charter party, Owner's claims under collateral letters
of indemnity
given by Charterer in return for discharging cargo without
presentation of
the bills of lading were within the scope of the broad
arbitration clause &
were subject to New York arbitration.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/2ndlouisdrey.html
Tisbury Towing v. Tug Venus
First Circuit Court of Appeals
June 5, 2001
Collisions/Casualties: trial court was not clearly erroneous
in finding that
the barge Owner had not met its burden of proving when the
grounding incident
in question occurred 7 therefore could not prove that the tug
VENUS had ever
grounded while towing its barge ALGOL 500.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1sttisbury.html
De Chalus v. P & O Containers
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
May 24, 2001
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"): the correct
package for purposes of
COGSA's $500 per package limitation was not the container, or
the 2,270
"cartons" of perfume on pallets as described on the
bill of lading, but the
42 individual pallets, which were described as
"packages" on the face of the
bill of lading.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/11thdechalus.html
Newport News Shipbuilding v. Stallings
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 23, 2001
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: a small compensation
award, based on an
actual loss of earning capacity, does not as a matter of law
preclude an
employer from seeking relief under § 8(f), which limits an
employer's
compensation liability to two years of benefits when a
preexisting disability
substantially aggravates a work-related injury.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/4thnewportnews.html
In re Hellenic, Inc.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 21, 2001
Limitation of Liability Act: once the claimant establishes
negligence or
unseaworthiness caused the loss, the owner of the vessel must
prove that the
negligence was not within the owner's privity or knowledge to
limit its
liability; the construction superintendent whose negligence
caused the loss,
although he may have possessed significant power over the
management of an
individual job, could not make "basic business
decisions" for the corporation
and did not possess managing authority over "the field of
operations" in
which the negligence occurred, thus his negligence was not
within the privity
or knowledge of the corporate owner.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thhellenic.html
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
Please click below to go back to the Cargo Letter home page.
Cargo Letter Home Page
Return to the top of Section E
Written from wire stories, the Associated Press, Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.