Florence L. Barbetta, and James D. Barbetta v. S/s Bermuda Star, in Rem, Her Engines, Tackle, and MacHinery Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
848 F.2d 1364 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State of Louisiana v. Verity (1988), Greenwell v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Corp. (2001)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · De Zon v. American President Lines, Ltd. · Reid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... When a carrier undertakes to employ a doctor aboard ship for its passengers’ convenience, the carrier has a duty to employ a doctor who is competent and duly qualified. If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. A shipping company is not in the business of providing medical services to passengers; it does not possess the expertise requisite to supervise a physician or surgeon carried on board a ship as a convenience to passengers. A ship is not a floating hospital; a ship’s physician is an independent medical expert engaged on the basis of his professional qualifications and carried on board a ship for the convenience of passengers, who are free to contract with him for any medical services they may require. ... Because it would be inconsistent with the basic theory of respondeat superior liability to impose responsibility vicariously where the “master” — that is, the ship’s owner or carrier — lacks the ability to meaningfully control the relevant actions of its “servant” — that is, the ship’s doctor — these courts have refused to do so.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here a ship’s physician is in the regular employment of a ship, as a salaried member of the crew, subject to the ship’s discipline and the master’s orders, and presumably also under the general direction and supervision of the company’s chief surgeon through modern means of communication, he is, for the purposes of respondeat superior at least, in the nature of an employee or servant for whose negligent treatment of a passenger a shipowner may be held liable.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e hold—as has every court to consider the question in the last one hundred years except [one]—that general maritime law does not impose liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior upon a carrier or ship owner for the negligence of a ship’s doctor who treats the ship’s passengers.”
2 later decisions 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.