Marion Lee Avera and Daniel J. Avera v. Florida Towing Corporation, Florida Towing Corporation v. Marion Lee Avera and Daniel J. Avera’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.2d 155 · 1963
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Claimant State of Florida (1985), Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States (1978)
47 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc. · Coryell v. Phipps · La Bourgogne · Sacramento Nav Co v. Salz · Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Hicks
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““knowledge means not only personal cognizance but also the means of knowledge — of which the owner or his superintendent is bound to avail himself — of contemplated loss or condition likely to produce or contribute to loss, unless appropriate means are adopted to prevent it.” The Cleveco, supra at 613 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Once we hold that Coppedge, as did Stover in Linseed King, had the duty of making inspection and inquiry, it follows without any question that through him the corporation is chargeable with privity and knowledge of Avera’s incompetency and the tug master’s negligence in taking him aboard as deckhand without first giving him adequate instruction .... [T]he fault in allowing Avera to sail with the tug and his injury occurring on the end of that voyage are all chargeable to the corporate shipowner as its acts done or omitted with its privity or knowledge.” 35”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... it would seem to be only common sense that if a charterer wishes to be treated as an owner pro hac vice in order to limit his liability, he must stand in the shoes of the owner in respect of the amount of value surrendered. The owner's right to limit carries with it a reciprocal obligation, and so, to the same extent, should that of the charterer.”
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.