Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 F.3d 55 - O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

294 F.3d 55 · 2002

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander · Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, before turning over the ship or any portion of it to the stevedore, the vessel owner must exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety. As part of this duty, the vessel owner must also warn the stevedore of hidden dangers that could not be discovered through the exercise of reasonable care. This set of obligations is usually referred to as the “turnover duty.” Second, once stevedoring operations have begun, the vessel will be liable if it actively involves itself in the cargo operations and negligently injures a longshoreman. A passive vessel owner has no ongoing duty to supervise or inspect the stevedore’s work-absent contractual, regulatory or customary obligations 4 to the contrary. However, even where the vessel does not actively involve itself in the stevedoring operations, it may be liable if it fails to exercise due care to avoid exposing longshoremen to harm from hazards they may encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active control of the vessel during the stevedor-ing operation. Therefore, the vessel must take care to prevent unreasonable hazards in areas of the vessel under its direct control. These related obligations arising either from the vessel’s “active involvement” in cargo operations or its “active control” of areas of the vessel encountered by”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]n appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “substantial in both its duration and its nature.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.