The Cargo Letter |
Section A: Section: 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
In re the EXXON VALDEZ, Baker v. Hazelwood
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Nov. 7, 2001
Damages (Punitive): punitive damages against Exxon for the Valdez oil spill
are not barred because Exxon has already been subject to criminal & civil
sanctions and cleanup expenses as a result of the spill; further, admiralty
law does not bar an award of punitive damages; and the Clean Water Act does
not preempt a private remedy for punitive damages; the district court
properly instructed the jury that it could impose punitive damages on Exxon
even if all the recklessness was by its employee Captain Hazelwood rather
than by Exxon itself; but, the $5 billion punitive damages award is too high
to withstand review under the recent Supreme Court decisions in BMW of North
America and Cooper Industries, which established three guideposts for
reviewing punitive damages awards: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the
person's conduct; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm
suffered by the victim and his punitive damage award; and (3) the difference
between the punitive damage award and the civil penalties authorized or
imposed in comparable cases; the case is remanded to the district court to
consider the constitutionality of the amount of the award in light of the
guideposts established in BMW. (See also the Press Release from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals concerning this decision >>
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thpressrelease.pdf.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thvaldez.pdf.
Hopkins v. Jordan Marine, Inc.
First Circuit Court of Appeals
Oct. 29, 2001
Jones Act/Seaworthiness: although the district court at one point told the
jury: "If you find that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were the result of
his failing to observe an obvious condition, you will find for the
defendant," this was not an impermissible instruction based on the doctrine
of "assumption of the risk"; the sentence does not say that assumption of an
obvious risk is a defense to unseaworthiness or negligence on the part of the
shipowner, but said that a ship is not unseaworthy or an owner negligent
merely because the owner does not anticipate that a crew member will behave
negligently.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1sthopkins.html.
In Re Complaint of Holly Marine Towing Co.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Oct. 26, 2001
Limitation of Liability Act: it was an abuse of discretion for the district
court to have dissolved the limitation act injunction against state court
claims against the barge owner where a third party defendant with a
contribution claim against the owner had not stipulated, along with the
plaintiffs, that it would not ask the state court to resolve any issue
concerning the limitation of the barge owner's liability.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/7thhollymarine.html.
Rodriquez v. Bowhead
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Oct. 26, 2001
Longshore & Harbors Workers Compensation Act: Holding: The district court
properly determined that contract language between a stevedoring company
(Northland) & time charterer of a ship (Bowhead) did not create a duty for
the time charterer to supervise the stevedores loading operations. Rodriquezs
only available claim arose under the Longshore and Harbor Workers
Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Supreme Court, in Scindia Steam Navigation Co.
v. De Los Santos 451 U.S. 156 (1981), held that vessels only owe limited
duties to longshoremen, unless they undertake additional duties through
contract. Since none of the duties outlined in Scindia were violated,
Rodriquez attempted to demonstrate that additional contractual duties existed
between Northland & Bowhead. Summary judgment was properly granted to
Bowhead, since Rodriquez failed to demonstrate any duties owed under either
the LHWCA or through contract. AFFIRMED.
Facts: Rodriquez worked for Northland through an employment agency. Bowhead
used boats owned by Foss to transport goods loaded at a dock owned and run by
Northland. One of the boats was not loaded properly & while trying to
re-arrange the cargo, a 20,000 lb load was dropped on Rodriquezs foot,
necessitating the amputation of 2 toes & 6 weeks of missed work.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0035280p.pdf.
Federal Marine Terminals v. Worcester Peat Co.
First Circuit Court of Appeals
Aug. 27, 2001
Charter Parties/Demurrage: since courts have been reluctant to impose
demurrage liability on a party that is neither a signatory, successor nor
possessor of a document that expressly or by incorporation refers to
demurrage, the loading stevedore who was not in privity will not be liable
for demurrage that the shipper was required to pay the vessel due to the
delays in loading the cargo of peat moss;
Carriage of Goods: the loading stevedore is further not liable for the loss
of any peat moss since the shipper failed to provide any reliable evidence of
how much peat moss was lost during loading & failed to establish that the
amount lost was beyond what was anticipated for this type of cargo.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1stfederal.html.
Pearce v. United States
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Aug. 23, 2001
Suits in Admiralty Act: while the Corps of Engineers had a duty to warn
boaters of the dangers around an operating dam, it satisfied that duty by
posting nine clearly-visible warning signs and including a warning on the
navigational chart that highlighted the taildeck area of the dam as a "Danger
Zone"; further, although it had installed a warning horn near the dam that
was not working at the time of the accident where 2 boaters drowned, it did
not violate the Good Samaritan Doctrine because, 1st, the Corps had
previously determined that warning signs provided ample warning and, 2nd, the
system was not active because of high water damage.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/6thpearce.html.
Please click below for other sections:
Section A: Section: 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
The Cargo Letter Correspondents:
Michael S. McDaniel, Esq., Editor
(Countryman & McDaniel).
Cameron W. Roberts, Esq. (Countryman & McDaniel).
Written from wire stories, the Associated Press, Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]