FARRELL LINES, INC.

v.

CANIZZO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Attilio Mattivi v. S. African Marine Corp, 618 F.2d 163 (2d Cir. 1980)
  …drops still existed at 11:00 A.M. when the fall occurred. There are numerous cases explicating the degree of notice that will render a shipowner liable. One of the most recent is Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F. 2d 682 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 316, 58 L.Ed.2d 322 (1978), which held that a shipowner cannot be held liable for physical injuries invitees suffer due to non-obvious dangerous conditions unless the shipowner knows or should have known of the condition. Ruffino v. Scinda…
• Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana SS "Campeche", 639 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1981)
  …shipowners in a worse position than before, since the vessel’s indemnity action against the stevedore was also eliminated by the 1972 Amendments. Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F. 2d 682, 687 (2d Cir.) (Friendly, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 316, 58 L.Ed.2d 322 (1978). Third, while directing courts to use a land-based standard of negligence, Congress specifically incorporated the admiralty concept of comparative negligence in place of the traditional terrene doctrines of cont…
• Giglio v. Farrell Lines Inc., 613 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1980)
  …duty upon stevedores. See Lubrano v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., 572 F. 2d 364, 373-74 (2d Cir. 1978) (Moore, J., dissenting); see also Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F. 2d 682, 688 (2d Cir. 1978) (Friendly, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 316, 58 L.Ed.2d 322 (1978) (33 U.S.C. § 941(a) imposes safety obligation on stevedore). But the regulations specifically provide that they do not relieve vessels “from responsibilities or duties now place upon them by law, regulation or cu…

  ← 1 / 3 →