carried and determine the vessel’s routes and destinations. See G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty § 4-1 at 194 (2d ed.1975). We have therefore indicated that a time charterer might be hable for choosing an unsafe combination of cargo in the same hold. See Kerr-McGee, 830 F.2d 1332, 1341. A time charterer may also be liable for directing the vessel to encounter natural conditions like hurricanes or treacherous seas. See, e.g. Graham v. Milky Way Barge, Inc., 824 F.2d 376, 388 (5th Cir.1987) (upholding finding that, under the circumstances, time charterer was liable for death and injury resulting from capsizing because time charterer sent vessel into unsheltered water and failed to broadcast weather information); Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1031, 1041-42 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Offshore Logistics Services, Inc. v. Mutual
holding that to state a subsection 1962a claim plaintiffs must allege a use or investment injury that is distinct from any injury resulting from the racketeering predicate acts themselves holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury holding time charterer liable for injury resulting from decision to continue unloading operations in treacherous weather conditions