May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

110 federal appellate · 25 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 248 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent, or charterers, shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel nor shall the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, or master be held liable for losses arising from dangers of the sea or other navigable waters, acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of package, or seizure under legal process, or for loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or from saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or from any deviation in rendering such service.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Denali · 719 F. Supp. 479 - C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc. v. M/V Hans Leonhardt

2. ““The relief afforded by the third section of the Harter act [46 USCA § 192] to the owner of a vessel transporting property is purely statutory. In the case at bar there could be no question as to tho liability of the vessel owner from the established facts of the ease, but for tho immunity afforded by that act. To permit a cargo of sugar to be injured by the introduction of fresh water in tho manner shown, but for the provisions of this aet, would have made a ease of clear liability against the owner; and where the statute has given immunity against such loss by reason of error in navigation, or management, it does so upon the distinct condition that the owner shall show that the vessel was in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied for the voyage; or, if this cannot be established, that he has used due diligence to obtain this end. The discharge of this duty is not left to any presumption in the absence of proof. It is the condition precedent, compliance with which is required of the vessel owner in order to give him the benefit of the immunity afforded by the act. The reason for requiring this proof by the owner is apparent. He is bound to furnish a seaworthy and properly equipped ship for the purpose of the voyage. Whether he has done so is a matter peculiarly within his own knowledge. The inspection which he can give, but which the shipper cannot give, for lack of opportunity, will establish whether this duty has been complied with. The whole ma”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Orient S. S. Co. v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd. · The Denali

3. “There would be no end to complications and embarrassments if the courts were to embark upon an inquiry as to the tendency of an unseaworthy defect to aggravate the risk of careless navigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Indien