adopting the opinion expressed in the dissent to the panel decision, Cincinnati Milacron, Ltd., 784 F.2d at 1166, that COG-SA liability limitation language need not even be apparent on a short-form bill of lading to be binding, as long as a long form with the language is adequately posted
How later courts described this case
- adopting the opinion expressed in the dissent to the panel decision, Cincinnati Milacron, Ltd., 784 F.2d at 1166, that COG-SA liability limitation language need not even be apparent on a short-form bill of lading to be binding, as long as a long form with the language is adequately posted
- sitting en banc, reversing earlier panel decision holding that fair opportunity doctrine could not be met through terms incorporated in a short form bill of lading; cited, although on another point, in General Elec. Co., 817 F.2d at 1029
- “clause paramount” provides constructive notice
- adopting dis. opn. of Phillips, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
On rehearing of this appeal en banc, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for reasons stated in the dissent to the superseded panel decision.
See Cincinnati Milacron, Ltd. v. M/V American Legend,
784 F.2d 1161, 1166 (4th Cir.1986) (dissenting opinion).
Chief Judge Winter and Judge Ervin dissent and would reverse for reasons stated in the superseded opinion for the panel majority.
See id.
at 1162 .
AFFIRMED.