46 C.F.R. § 5.29
Negligence
Negligence is the commission of an act which a reasonable and prudent person of the same station, under the same circumstances, would not commit, or the failure to perform an act which a reasonable and prudent person of the same station, under the same circumstances, would not fail to perform.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: Stewart (W.D. La. 2025).
Stewart (W.D. La. 2025). “§ 6503 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 . Id. Specifically, Plaintiff claims she is owed damages for Defendant’s negligence in its duties and breach of its contract which led to “the thief [sic], destruction and damage of the private personal stolen property.”
Baker (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 4101 , 2) negligence under 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 ; 3) “breach of duty” under 29 U.”
Will v. Meta Inc. (D. Neb. 2024). “Will (“Plaintiff”), a non-prisoner, filed his Complaint on October 18, 2024 (the “Complaint”), alleging this Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 . Filing No. 1. Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
Parkes v. Belga Cafe (D.D.C. 2024). “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 and demands $2 million in damages, alleging she must now bring her own cutlery to restaurants because she is “cautious and skeptical” of potential contamination.”
McAllister v. Long (E.D. Mich. 2025). “29” The Court presumes that Plaintiff is claiming a violation of 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 in Count I of her Complaint, as there is no similar provision in the United States Code.”
Ehart v. Lahaina Divers, Inc. (D. Haw. 2023). “§ 7703 (1)(B) and defined by 46 CFR 5.29.” The reference there to Dam’s having allowed a snorkler to be more than 100 feet from the Dauntless is a factual allegation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.