Legal Opinion

Olympia Canning Co. v. Union Marine Ins.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided April 14, 1925No. 8439PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In the absence of adverse proof, it is presumed that the ship foundering at sea is because of the “peril of the sea.” Rule 7, Sehed. 1, Eng. Marine Act 1906; Delanty v. Yang Tsze Ins. Ass’n, 127 Wash. 238, 220 P. 754. Here the cause is known. The ship was seaworthy at the inception of the voyage." The issue is: Was the loss due to a peril of the sea? There is a distinction between “damages arising on the sea” and “perils arising directly from the sea.” Merrill v. Arey, 17 Fed. Cas. 83. Judge Ware, in Merrill, supra, held .that “dangers of the seas” included…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. The RosaliaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
  2. Viterbo v. FriedlanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. The G. R. BoothSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. Ceballos v. The Warren AdamsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
  5. The GiuliaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. David Scott Hastings v. Sandra HutchensDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
  2. Navonne v. Action Watersports of TahoeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API