Hanson & Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang

7 Citing cases

  1. Sunward Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

    811 F.2d 511 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 70 times
    Reversing jury verdict where essential elements of plaintiff's claim were "supported only by speculation and conjecture" rather than admissible evidence

    " Id. at 1326 (citation omitted). See also Hanson Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528, 540-41 (S.D.Ga. 1978) (evidence that a shipowner was negligent in relation to a fire aboard his ship was too speculative); Thomas v. Young, 282 F. Supp. 52, 55 (E.D. Wis. 1968). The line between "reasonable inferences" and mere speculation is impossible to define with any precision.

  2. Brown Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander

    648 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a published tariff which "has the effect of law" and "gave Shipper the opportunity to choose between valuations by paying more or less freight" afforded the shipper with a fair opportunity to opt out of COGSA's limitation

    This must be done, of course, under the compunction of the Court's words that "contracts purporting to grant immunity from, or limitation of, liability must be strictly construed and limited to intended beneficiaries . . .," 359 U.S. at 305, 79 S.Ct. at 771, 3 L.Ed. at 825. See Grace Line, Inc. v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 500 F.2d 361, 1974 A.M.C. 1136 (9th Cir. 1974) (involving not only the $500 per package limitation, but the one-year statute of limitation); 46 U.S.C.A. § 1303(6) (unseaworthiness not caused by want of due diligence); 46 U.S.C.A. § 1304(1) (fire damage not caused by actual fault or privity); 46 U.S.C.A. § 1304(2)(b) (immunity for liability not caused by actual fault or privity); 46 U.S.C.A. § 1304(2)(q); 46 U.S.C.A. § 1304(2)(a) (errors in navigation); Hanson Orth, Inc., MGC Community Corp., et al. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.Ga. 1978) (fire statute exemption). In the main, the Himalaya clause has been upheld by the various Courts of Appeals including the Fifth Circuit; Secrest Machine Corp. v. SS Steamship Tiber, 450 F.2d 285, 1971 A.M.C. 2332 (5th Cir. 1971), unlike some other cases, extended the $500 per package limitation to a Stevedore under a clause which described the beneficiaries as "the Carrier's agents, servants and employees and of any independent contractor . . ."

  3. M.O.N.T. BOAT RENTAL v. UNION OIL, ETC

    613 F.2d 576 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 28 times
    In M.O.N.T., a time charterer requested that the chartered vessel proceed out into rough seas, and a member of the crew was injured.

    Certainly in a time, as opposed to bareboat, charter, the shipowner and captain are in the ideal position where matters involving management and control of the vessel are involved. Dow Chemical Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 463 F.2d 120, 1972 AMC 2137 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1040, 93 S.Ct. 525, 34 L.Ed.2d 490, 1973 AMC 539 (1972). Cf. Nitram, Inc. v. Cretan Life, 599 F.2d 1359, 1366-67 (5th Cir. 1979); Hanson Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528, 541 (S.D.Ga. 1978); Camiolo v. Felicitas-Rickmers Line K.G. Co., 449 F. Supp. 18, 19-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Klishewich v. Mediterranean Agencies, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 712, 713, 1969 AMC 359, 360 (E.D.N.Y. 1969). The protest clause in this case covered matters relating to the control and management of the vessel, matters assigned ordinarily to M.O.N.T. under the provisions of the charter party.

  4. Falcon Const. Co. v. Bacon Towing Co., Inc.

    613 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. Tex. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    A stevedore has a duty to use reasonable care and ordinary diligence in the loading and stowage of cargo. E.g., Hanson Orth v. M/V JALATARANG, 450 F. Supp. 528, 536 (S.D.Ga. 1978). Plaintiff must prove a violation of this duty by a preponderance of the evidence.

  5. B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark Son

    542 F. Supp. 1367 (D. Md. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    This seemingly nice distinction has been used to justify the denial to third parties of COGSA protection where only the language of ¶ 1(a) appeared in the bill of lading. See Hanson Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.Ga. 1978) (Stevedore which negligently caused fire on vessel during unloading held not entitled to protection of either COGSA or the Fire Statute (46 U.S.C. § 182) under bill of lading provision identical to ¶ 1(a) in the document now under consideration, since stevedore was sued strictly in capacity of stevedore, not in capacity of carrier or bailee). The inclusion of ¶ 1(b) effectively cuts off the contention successfully raised by the consignees in Hanson.

  6. Ionmar Compania, Etc. v. Central of Ga. R. Co.

    471 F. Supp. 942 (S.D. Ga. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    The burden rests on the cargo claimants to establish that the fire resulted from the personal fault and neglect of the vessel owner. Hanson, Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528 (S.D., Ga.); American Tobacco Company v. Goulandris, 173 F. Supp. 140, 178 (S.D., N.Y.), aff'd 281 F.2d 179 (2nd Cir.); Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Flota Mercante del Estado, 205 F.2d 886 (5th Cir.), cert. den. 346 U.S. 915, 74 S.Ct. 275, 98 L.Ed. 411. 6.

  7. Offshore Logistics Services, Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

    469 F. Supp. 1099 (E.D. La. 1979)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that the insurer refused to pay primarily because it disagreed with the settlement figure

    The court in a non-jury case must be guided by the same principle.'" Hanson Orth, Inc. v. M/V Jalatarang, 450 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.Ga. 1978), citing Jaramillo v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 172, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). A court can certainly base its decision — and a plaintiff could sustain its burden of proof — by relying on reasonable inferences.