THE JAVA

5 Citing cases

  1. Folkstone Maritime, Ltd. v. CSX Corp.

    64 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that seamen have a duty to take "reasonable care under the circumstances"

    As in other tort contexts, in order for liability to be imposed in a maritime allision case, the fault must be a proximate cause of the injury. Therefore, the fault committed by the operator of the instrumentality (the ship, or in this case, the Bridge) must be a contributory cause of the collision. The Java, 81 U.S. 189, 193, 198-99 (1872); The Farragut, 77 U.S. 334, 338-39 (1870). Generally, common-law proximate cause analysis is applicable, and, if a vessel was not a contributory cause of the allision, no liability will follow.

  2. Merritt-Chapman Scott Corp. v. Cornell S.S

    265 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1959)   Cited 11 times

    That proposition is self-evident, but authority to support it is not lacking: The S. P. No. 15, D.C., 61 F. Supp. 846, and cases therein cited. Cf. The Java, 14 Wall. 189, 20 L.Ed. 834, 81 U.S. 189. Because the record is thought not to demonstrate that this burden of proof has been sustained, this opinion is written.

  3. In Matter of Complaint of Matteson Marine Service

    Case No. 08-cv-4023, Consolidated with, Case No. 08-cv-4056 (C.D. Ill. Jul. 13, 2011)

    "As in other tort contexts, in order for liability to be imposed in a maritime allision case, the fault must be the proximate cause of the injury." Folkstone Maritime, Ltd., v. CSX Corp., 64 F.3d 1037, 1046 (7th Cir. 1995), citing The Java, 81 U.S. 189, 193, 198-99 (1871); The Farragut, 77 U.S. 334, 338-39 (1870). Therefore, if Matteson Marine's initial act of negligence were to be deemed the proximate cause of the second allision, then liability would naturally attach.

  4. Skandia Insurance Co. v. Star Shipping

    173 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (S.D. Ala. 2001)   Cited 16 times

    As such, even in the face of a hurricane befitting the "Act of God" category, the Defendants still bear the burden of establishing their lack of fault, to be properly exonerated from liability for the cargo damage. See The Java, 81 U.S. 189 (1871). Indeed, to avoid liability, the Defendants must show that the force of the storm was truly irresistible and unforeseeable and that all precautions had been taken.

  5. Williamson Leasing v. Am. Commercial Lines

    616 F. Supp. 1330 (E.D. La. 1985)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that plaintiff's vessel obstructed channel under ยง 409 despite safe passage of vessel other than that involved in allision

    Maritime collision liability is predicated upon a finding of fault (a finding of negligent conduct) and the mere fact of physical impact has no legal consequence. The JAVA, 81 U.S. 189, 190, 20 L.Ed. 834 (1872); Hogge v. S/S YORKMAR, 434 F. Supp. 715, 727 (D.Md. 1977); Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. S/S MARIE LEONHARDT, 202 F. Supp. 368, 375 at n. 54 (E.D.Pa. 1962). The fault found must be a contributing cause of the collision for liability to be imposed.