In re Mar. S.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• describing the Act of God defense’s burden as “the most difficult burden on the defendant, because as a superceding [sic] causation argument it can free the moving vessel from all liability”
• describing the Act of God defense’s burden as “the most difficult burden on the defendant, because as a superceding [sic] causation argument it can free the moving vessel from all liability”
• discussing the effect of THE LOUISIANA rule on apportionment of liability
• “Liability in collision and allision cases has always been apportioned based on fault.” (quoting Fischer v. S/Y NERAIDA, 508 F.3d 586, 593 (11th Cir. 2007))
• even assuming that the district court properly discarded an analogous presumption, the opposing party is nevertheless “entitled to present evidence of comparative fault at trial.”
• “[W]ith the presence of evidence of fault in the record, the need for presumptions evaporates.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).