Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Karvelis v. Constellation Lines S.A.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 21, 1986No. 99, Docket 86-7418Published

1ConcurrenceMahoney, Circuit Judge

I concur in the judgment reached by the majority, and differ only as to its determination that Constellation was properly held liable on the unseaworthiness count as owner pro hac vice.

The majority relies upon Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed.2d 448 (1963), where a bareboat charterer was deemed an owner pro hac vice and accordingly liable for unseaworthiness, and Eskine v. United Barge Company, 484 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir.1973), reaching the same result where “[t]he relationship was, or was analogous to, that existing under a bareboat charter.” Id. at 1196. I do not believe…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Reed v. the YakaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Guzman v. PichiriloSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. United States v. SheaSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Keller v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1983
  5. Eskine v. United Barge CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API