Mcneil v. A/S Havbor

2 Citing cases

  1. Mascuilli v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

    381 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Pa. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    Ruling that dunnage from cargo hold was an appurtenance to ship and that maritime law would apply to case, but that dunnage was not defective until after it left ship

    Plaintiff has not argued that there is an unseaworthiness doctrine in Pennsylvania law which would be applied even though federal maritime law is not. Nor are we aware of any such doctrine. See Cooper v. Australian Coastal Shipping Comm'n, 338 F. Supp. 1056 (E.D.Pa. 1972), aff'd mem., 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir. 1973); McNeil v. A/S Havbor, 339 F. Supp. 1264 (E.D.Pa. 1972). We also believe, however, that even if the warranty of seaworthiness applies in this case, that the improper pierside method of operation by the stevedore did not render the ship unseaworthy.

  2. Garrett v. Gutzeit O/Y

    491 F.2d 228 (4th Cir. 1974)   Cited 19 times
    Applying maritime law to tort claim stemming from injury caused by defective coils used as cargo containers on vessel

    This approach eliminates the need to consider the extent to which maritime law is applicable in a diversity action. See generally McNeil v. A/S Havbor, 339 F. Supp. 1264 (E.D.Pa. 1972). II