Bess v. Agromar Line’s Empirical Analysis
518 F.2d 738 · 1975
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd. (1977), Napoli v. Transpacific Carriers Corp. (1976)
44 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · Lucas v. " BRINKNES" SCHIFFAHRTS GES. · Venable v. A/S Det Forenede Dampskibsselskab · Ramirez v. Toko Kaiun K.K.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the event of injury to a person covered under this chapter caused by the negligence of a vessel, then such person, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages by reason thereof, may bring an action against such vessel * * *. If such person was employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services, no such action shall be permitted if the injury was caused by the negligence of persons engaged in providing stevedoring services to the vessel. * * * The liability of the vessel under this subsection shall not be based upon the warranty of seaworthiness or a breach thereof at the time the injury occurred. The remedy provided in this subsection shall be exclusive of all other remedies against the vessel except remedies available under this chapter.” (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Permitting actions against the vessel based on negligence will meet the objective of encouraging safety because the vessel will still be required to exercise the same care as a land-based person in providing a safe place to work. Thus, nothing in this bill is intended to derogate from the vessel's responsibility to take appropriate corrective action where it knows or should have known about a dangerous condition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the shipowner's negligent breach of its nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.