South Florida Injury Law Blog

Worksite accidents happen all the time and occasionally result in very serious injuries. In Villalta v. Cornn International, Florida's First District Court of Appeals explains the gross negligence standard, an important issue in deciding who may be liable in the event of a work injury.

Mr. Villalta was working as a drywall finisher for L&W Drywall Services on a project on which the company was a subcontractor when he was tragically killed after falling off a scaffold. The personal representative of his estate sued a number of companies for wrongful death, including L&W and Tropic Aire, an HVAC company that was also working as a subcontractor on the project.

Florida law provides that contractors and subcontractors are immune from suit by an employee of another subcontractor for injuries sustained on a construction project, so long as the employee's company has workers' compensation insurance for its own employees and the injury was not caused by the other company's gross negligence.

The representative claimed that Tropic Aire acted with gross negligence by failing to properly cover a "cut-out" in the floor where Villalta was working or warning him of the danger that the "cut-out" presented. The trial court disagreed, however, finding that the representative failed to present evidence of gross negligence. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to Tropic Aire.

Reversing the decision on appeal, the First Circuit said the trial court improperly weighed the evidence. "[T]he line between simple and gross negligence is often uncertain and indistinct, and in such circumstances the question of whether negligence is simple or gross should ordinarily be resolved by the jury," the court explained. In addition, negligence evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (the representative) at the summary judgment stage, according to the court.

As the First District explained, the gross negligence standard encompasses a variety situations in which there is a "a clear and present danger of serious harm," a responsible party is or should have been aware of the danger and the party nevertheless acted in "conscious disregard" of the danger.

Continue reading "Proving Gross Negligence in Florida Worker's Compensation Cases - Villalta v. Cornn International " »

Florida law generally allows a person injured by another's negligence to recover damages for the wide variety of economic and non-economic harms that may result. In Estrada v. Mercy Hospital, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal explains that the damages award may include lost earnings for a person whose life is expected to be cut short due to the injury.

After being diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in September 2010, Ms. Estrada sued Mercy Hospital and Dr. Amisha Agarwal for negligence, claiming that Agarwal failed to report evidence of micro-calcifications during a routine mammogram more than two years earlier. The defendants admitted liability and the parties agreed to have an arbitration panel determine the damages incurred by Estrada as a result of the negligence.

Estrada argued that, because her life expectancy had been "severely curtailed" as a result of the hospital's negligence, she was entitled to damages covering lost earnings over the course of her "pre-injury" life expectancy (more than 82 years). While the panel heard such evidence, it ultimately rejected Estrada's assertion. The panel awarded her more than $1 million in damages, a figure that included $365,000 in lost earnings for time that she would be unable to work because of the cancer during her shortened life expectancy.

The Third District reversed the decision on appeal. The court held that Estrada was entitled to damages for lost earning capacity for the years following her expected death until the time she would have likely otherwise died, had the cancer been diagnosed earlier. "It is the function of an award of damages to place the injured party in an actual, as distinguished from a theoretical position, financially equal to that which he would have occupied had his injuries not occurred," the court explained, quoting the Florida Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Renuart Lumber Yards v. Levine. Indeed, Section 766.202(3), Florida Statutes (2012), which governs arbitration awards in medical negligence cases, defines "economic damages" as "financial losses that would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action."

The court rejected the hospital's assertion that allowing recovery for damages incurred after Estrada's expected death would wrongly compensate her heirs for the injury, rather than Estrada herself. While the claim was for negligence - it was not a wrongful death action on behalf of Estrada's family - the court noted that Florida law bars a subsequent wrongful death action related to injuries for which a person has already been compensated in a personal injury claim. As a result, the arbitration panel should have considered damages caused by the defendants' negligence that may be incurred following Estrada's death, according to the court.

Continue reading "Loss of Earnings in Florida Medical Negligence Cases - Estrada v. Mercy Hospital" »

While a property owner may be liable for injuries caused in an accident on the premises, Florida law generally provides a defense for owners claiming that the dangerous condition causing the accident was "open and obvious." In Wieder v. King Cole Condominium Association, the Third District Court of Appeal explains the limits on this defense as applied to a Florida condominium association.

The plaintiff was injured in an accident when she tripped and fell in the common area of the condo building in which she owned a unit. According to the plaintiff, she was going back to her unit after taking her dog for a walk when her foot got caught in an area of the hallway carpet that had buckled after being cleaned. She injured her arm, hand and neck.

The plaintiff sued the condo association for negligence, claiming that she and other unit owners had previously complained to it about the buckling carpet. She further asserted that it was the association's duty to keep the common area safe and that it failed to do so.

The association, on the other hand, countered by arguing that the buckling carpet was a known and obvious condition of which the plaintiff should have steered clear. A trial court agreed, finding that she was aware of the defective carpet because she had previously walked over it to take her dog out, and granting summary judgment to the association as a result.

The Third District reversed the decision on appeal, however. The court compared the matter to its 1997 decision in Lotto v. Point East Two Condominium Corporation, in which it ruled that a condo association may be liable for its failure to maintain a cracked sidewalk, even where the injured unit owner had walked over the damaged area several times prior to her accident. In that case, the court explained "there remained a factual issue whether the association should anticipate that condominium residents would use the sidewalk and proceed to encounter the cracked and uneven concrete, notwithstanding that the condition was obvious..."

Continue reading "Court Says Condo Association May be Liable for Owner's Accident - Wieder v. King Cole Condominium Association" »

Defendants in Florida personal injury lawsuits often fight intensely over indemnification issues, determining which party is on the hook for any damages awarded. It's also important that the person suing be mindful of these issues, however, as indemnity can determine the amount the person ultimately recovers. In United Rentals v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida explains the difference between seeking indemnity for a party's own negligence, as opposed to the negligence of someone else.

Mr. Medina was injured in a construction site accident in which he was struck by a boulder that fell out of the bucket of a front end loader operated by Jackson, his co-worker. Gen-X Construction had leased the machine from United Rentals.

Medina sued both companies, Jackson, and other parties for negligence in state court. Specifically, he claimed that Gen-X was negligent in failing to provide a safe work place and failing to properly train Jackson. Against United, he claimed that the company was vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The doctrine provides that the owner of an instrumentality that is "peculiarly dangerous in its operation" is liable for injuries caused by the instrumentality's negligent operation by anyone who uses it with the owner's consent.

United, in turn, alleged a number of cross-claims against Gen-X related to its allegation that Gen-X agreed to indemnify all claims against United related to use of the front loader - and to procure insurance in order to do so - when it signed a form rental agreement. Gen-X, on the other hand, defended that the indemnity agreement was invalid because it violated § 725.06, Florida Statutes. This law voids indemnity agreements to the extent that a party seeks indemnity for its own active negligence.

Here, however, the court said that United was seeking to have Gen-X indemnify it for Medina's vicarious liability against the company. "United's claim for indemnification is thus necessarily premised on Gen-X indemnifying United for someone else's negligence (here [Mr.] Jackson's) which does not run afoul of Section 725.06," the court explained. Similarly, the agreement required Gen-X to procure insurance in order to guard against claims alleging negligence by a party other than United. As a result, the court rejected Gen-X's claim that the agreement terms were unenforceable.

Continue reading "Indemnity in Florida Personal Injury Lawsuits - United Rentals v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company" »

Arbitration is a type of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties submit their claims and defenses to a neutral third person (arbitrator) whose decision is typically binding. A wide variety of contracts often include an "arbitration clause" requiring the parties to arbitrate claims either in place of or before filing a lawsuit. In Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Florida's Supreme Court explains that a woman suing on behalf of her dead father is bound by an arbitration clause in a contract he signed prior to passing.

Mr. Stewart died several days after being admitted to nursing home Avante at Leesburg for rehabilitation following surgery. His daughter, Ms. Laizure, sued Avante for wrongful death and violation of the Florida Nursing Home Residents' Rights Act. The state's Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's ruling that Laizure was required to submit the claims to arbitration rather than filing suit because her father had signed an agreement to arbitrate all claims against the nursing home upon his admission to the facility.

Specifically, the clause stated that Stewart agreed to arbitrate any claims against Avante arising from his stay at the facility and exceeding $10,000 in value. It also stated that it applied to representatives, employees, heirs and other individuals bringing claims on Stewart's behalf.

On further appeal, the state Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable against Laizure even though she didn't sign it. "[T]here are three elements for courts to consider in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration of a given dispute: (1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived," the court explained, citing its 1999 decision in Seifert v. U.S. Home Corporation. Here, the arbitration agreement applied to Laizure and the issues raised in her claims against Avante, according to the court.

The court noted that there was a "significant relationship" between Laizure's claim and the subject of the contract in which the arbitration clause was included: her father's stay at Avante. Finding that the clause's terms expressly included tort claims such as negligence and malpractice, the court said that the parties clearly intended to include wrongful death claims within the scope of their agreement.

Continue reading "Florida Supreme Court Says Daughter Must Arbitrate Wrongful Death Claims Against Nursing Home - Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg" »

The timing of a lawsuit is a crucial issue in any case, but particularly in medical malpractice actions where tight restrictions require an injured person to not only meet certain pre-suit requirements but also file suit within a strict deadline. In Woodward v. Olson, the Second District Court of Appeal explains how the deadline works for a patient claiming she's been mistreated over the course of many years.

Mrs. Woodward was a heavy smoker with cancer in her family when she started regularly seeing Dr. Olson in 1989. Woodward was injured when she fell from the roof of her home in 2002 and was later admitted to a local emergency room. A radiologist's report on X-rays taken at the time indicated that the X-rays showed an "area of increased density" in the right lung. Although the radiologist recommended follow-up examinations, Dr. Olson did not tell Woodward about the x-ray results, nor order additional tests.

Following X-rays in August 2005 and January 2008, radiologists again identified issues with Woodward's right lung and recommended follow-up tests. Olson, in turn, did not provide the X-ray results to Woodward nor schedule additional tests. He retired in 2009. When Woodward saw a new physician, the doctor immediately told her about the earlier X-ray results, which had been included in her medical file. Woodward was later diagnosed with lung cancer.

Woodward and her husband sued Dr. Olson and his hospital for medical malpractice in June 2010. The trial court granted summary judgment to Olson, ruling that the action was barred under Florida's statute of repose. Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that a medical malpractice suit can be brought not later than four years after "the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued." Woodward had alleged that the malpractice began in 2002.

The Second District disagreed with the lower court, however. "[I]n a medical malpractice case, it is the discrete incident of malpractice that triggers the running of the statute of repose," the court explained, citing the Fourth District's 1987 decision in Carr v. Broward County. Here, Woodward alleged more than one discrete incident of malpractice, according to the court. The first was during her 2002 emergency room visit when Olson failed to mention or act on the x-ray results. The two similar, but separate incidents in 2005 and 2008 were other discrete events.

Continue reading "Filing Deadlines in Florida Medical Malpractice Cases - Woodward v. Olson" »

A product manufacturer is generally required to ensure that the items it makes for sale are reasonably safe, and that potential buyers are warned of any risks or dangers associated with using the product in the way it was intended. Just how safe and what types of risks must be addressed are questions that often end up before Florida courts. In Hernandez v. Altec Environmental, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida takes up these issues in relation to a commercial wood chipper.

Guadalupe Hernandez was injured in an accident while using a wood chipper. Manufactured by Altec Environmental, the machine came equipped with a safety guard, which had been removed prior to the accident. Hernandez and his wife sued the company for strict liability and negligence, alleging that the chipper was defectively designed and that Altec failed to provide users proper warning and instructions.

Specifically, Hernandez argued that the chipper was designed in a way that required users to regularly remove the bolted-in safety guard in order to clear debris jams. As a result, Altec should have expected that users would operate the machine without the guard in place and took no steps to prevent injury related to use of the unguarded machine.

The District Court rejected this argument. "Plaintiffs' basic premise that the safety guard will be removed and not replaced because it is time consuming to remove and replace the bolts regularly is unsupported because there is no evidence that the chipper jammed in the field on a sufficiently frequent basis." Rather, the person who field tested the machine for Hernandez's employer before purchase said that the chipper jammed a number of times, but that he removed the safety guard only "a few times" between the summer of 2008 and November 2009.

The court also found that the danger posed to users by operating the machine with the safety guard removed was obvious. "By necessity, wood chippers are dangerous and the danger inherent in putting one's hand under a running wood chipper that has its safety guard removed is sufficiently patent and obvious that no additional warning is legally required," the court explained, citing the January ruling by Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal in List Industries v. Dalien. As such, Altec had no duty to warn users of any risk posed by using the chipper without the safety guard in place, according to the court.

Continue reading "Florida Court Explains Defective Design and The Duty to Warn in Wood Chipper Accident Case - Hernandez v. Altec Environmental" »

If you've been to a doctor's office lately, you are probably familiar with the stacks of forms and agreements that usually must be completed before you or your child can be seen. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal explains in Moody v. Lawnwood Medical Center, the terms of this and other paperwork can determine your right to later sue if something goes wrong.

Ms. Moody brought her daughter, S.W. , to a pediatrician after S.W. was injured in a playground accident. The doctor ordered x-rays and, along with a radiologist, determined that S.W. had suffered a hip fracture. He recommended that she be admitted at nearby Lawnwood Medical Center, where he had privileges as an independent contractor.

S.W. was admitted through Lawnwood's emergency room where Moody signed a "Conditions of Admission" form stating, among other provisions, that Lawnwood was to provide medical services in exchange for payment. On the reverse side of the form were additional terms limiting Lawnwood's liability for the acts of independent contractor physicians. Moody later denied that she ever read or assented to the terms on the back side of the form.

After evaluating S.W., Lawnwood's on-call orthopedist determined that she did not have a hip fracture and recommended that she be discharged. The pediatrician completed the discharge.

Moody later brought S.W. to Palms Hospital after her condition worsened. At Palms, she was diagnosed with a number of conditions, including a fractured right hip, septic arthritis and shock, right heart failure and various infections throughout her body. She "was hospitalized for ten weeks and had significant long-term health complications," according to the court.

Continue reading "Waivers and Releases in Florida Medical Negligence Cases - Moody v. Lawnwood Medical Center" »

As mentioned in our previous posts, a person injured in an accident aboard a cruise ship may very well have a claim against the ship's owner. But what about when the accident happens during an onshore excursion? In Heyden v. Celebrity Cruises, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida explains that the ship owner may be liable for negligence in selecting and retaining a third party excursion operator who is unfit.

Heyden was a passenger on a Celebrity Cruises ship when he was injured while riding a Segway during a shore excursion in St. Maarten. The accident occurred as Heyden was traveling on a pedestrian boardwalk. The Segway caught a bench nailed to the ground, causing Heyden to tumble from the vehicle, which then fell atop him. The tour was operated by Caribbean Segway Tours, an independent contractor. Heyden sued Celebrity for negligence, claiming that the company was remiss in selecting and retaining the excursion operator, among other claims.

Denying Celebrity's motion to dismiss the action, the Southern District found that Heyden properly alleged claims for negligent contractor selection and retention.
"Though cruise ship owners . . . cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, it is well-established that they may be liable for negligently hiring or retaining a contractor," the court explained, citing its 2011 decision in Smolnikar v. Royal Caribbean. To state such a claim, an injured person must alleged that the contractor was not competent to perform the work; the ship owner knew that the contractor was unfit; and the contractor's incompetence caused the injury.

Here, Heyden alleged that Caribbean Segway Tours was a "fly-by-night" operation whose workers themselves were not properly trained and failed to provide appropriate training and supervision for its customers. Indeed, the company gave only a two-minute orientation on how to operate the Segways, according to Heyden, and did not mention any dangers of operating the vehicles on the boardwalk before embarking on the excursion.

Heyden also argued that Celebrity was or should have been aware of CST's incompetence based on previous incidents. Specifically, he asserted that other CST customers were robbed at gunpoint during a Segway excursion in Nassau, Bahamas in 2009 and that Celebrity cancelled CST excursions at the site as a result.

Continue reading "Court Allows Negligence Claim Stemming from Cruise Excursion Accident to Proceed - Heyden v. Celebrity Cruises" »

Anyone who has been on a cruise lately no doubt remembers the various paperwork they had to complete and sign before boarding and departure. Buried in there somewhere was probably a waiver or two, purporting to limit the ship owner's liability in the event of an accident. In a recent case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida explained that these waivers are not necessarily enforceable.

Ms. Arnold and her boyfriend were passengers on a three-day cruise aboard Royal Caribbean's Monarch of the Seas that departed from Port Canaveral on February 25, 2011. The couple participated in a jet ski tour during the ship's stop at Coco Cay, an island in the Bahamas owned by RC. The tour was designed to operate in "follow-the-leader" fashion, with each jet ski spaced out from one another, a tour guide leading the way and a "chaser" ensuring that the jet skis remained properly spaced. When the jet ski in front of them slowed, however, Arnold and her boyfriend also slowed. Arnold was injured when she was struck from behind by another jet ski.

RC brought an action for exoneration from or limitation of liability, arguing that the company could not be held liable for Arnold's injuries because she signed a waiver before embarking on the jet ski tour. Specifically, the waiver form stated that Arnold agreed to release RC and its employees from any action "arising from any accident or injury . . . in any way connected with her rental, participation, use, or operation of the jet ski."

The court disagreed. 46 U.S.C. § 30509 provides that the owner and operator of "a vessel transporting passengers between ports in the United States, or between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country" may not include a contract provision limiting its liability for injury or death caused by its negligence. Relying heavily on Johnson v. Royal Caribbean - a case in which the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the Southern District's ruling enforcing "a similarly broad waiver" related to an on-board surfing simulator - the court found that section 30509 applied in the current case.

"Royal is indisputably the owner of a vessel transporting passengers between a United States port and a foreign port -- the Monarch of the Seas traveled from a Florida port to a Bahamas port...And the Waiver in the present case...clearly seeks to limit Royal's liability for injuries allegedly caused by its negligence," the court explained.

Continue reading "Court Declines to Enforce Cruise Company's Liability Waiver in Jet Ski Accident Case - In re the complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd." »

It took longer for a marooned cruise ship to be towed to port than for at least some passengers who were aboard the doomed boat to decide to seek legal redress. Two passengers stranded on the ill-fated Carnival Triumph cruise ship without electricity for five days have filed a class action lawsuit against the vessel's owner, claiming that the company negligently failed to provide a seaworthy ship.

"Carnival knew or should have known that the vessel Triumph was likely to experience mechanical and/or engine issues because of prior similar issues," passengers Matt and Melissa Crusan allege in a complaint against Carnival, according to Reuters.

The 893-foot long Triumph was towed to port in Mobile, Ala. after a fire caused it to lose power off the coast of Mexico. More than 3,000 passengers on the boat were left with no air conditioning for five days. Power outages in kitchens and bathrooms also meant many were forced to sleep on the boat's deck and resort to using plastic bags in place of toilets.

The fire resulted from a leaking fuel-oil line, a Coast Guard investigation revealed. Yet, given that the blaze was limited to a small control room, the precise reasons for the continued power outage remains unclear.

Although Carnival offered to reimburse passengers for their fare and travel costs and pay them $500 a piece, at least some are looking for additional remedies. The Crusans' suit seeks damages for physical and emotional injuries suffered by passengers as well as punitive damages, which are generally intended to punish a wrongdoer. The couple also claims that Carnival chose to tow the ship to Mobile, rather than a closer Mexican port, extending the agony aboard.

Continue reading "'Floating Hell' Carnival Triumph Passengers File Lawsuits " »

Workplace injuries happen every day, especially if you work in a place like a construction site. That's why Florida employers are required to have workers' compensation insurance. As the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal recently explained in Gorham v. Zachry Industrial, Inc., however, an employer that provides workers' comp to an injured employee is generally shielded from being later sued for the injuries. Unless, that is, the company directed the employee to do something it knew was exceedingly likely to cause harm.

Roger Gorham was injured in an accident while working as a rigger on a Florida Power and Light power plant construction site in Loxahatchee. He was part of a crew trying to lift and place a nine-ton wall using two cranes. Gorham was disconnecting shackles from the wall when it was caught in a gust of wind and dragged him to the ground.

The lift had been cancelled a day earlier because winds over 20 miles an hour created a danger that the wall would sway. According to various accounts of the incident, the wind was blowing at somewhere from 12 to 18 miles an hour when the crew attempted the lift the following day.

Gorham sued his employer, Zachry Industrial , for negligence. He claimed that the company should have cancelled the lift because of the wind and did not take adequate measures to protect the workers participating in the lift from injury. A trial court granted summary judgment in the company's favor, ruling that Zachry was immune from suit under the state workers' compensation law.

The Fourth District affirmed the decision on appeal. An employer who provides workers' compensation to an injured employee is generally shielded from a later suit by the employee for the injuries suffered. "Essentially, under this no-fault system, the employee gives up a right to a common-law action for negligence in exchange for strict liability and the rapid recovery of benefits," the court explained. This workers' compensation immunity does not apply, however, to accidents caused by an activity that the employer knew was "virtually certain" to cause injury.

Continue reading "Suing an Employer for Injury on the Job - Gorham v. Zachry Industrial, Inc. " »

Defective products can cause harm in a wide variety of scenarios, including on boats. When an accident happens because of a defective product, a number of complicated issues arise as to how the accident happened and who is responsible for it. In Fish Tale Sales & Services, Inc. v. Nice, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal explains one of these issues: indemnity.

William Nice and Maria Condeiro-Nice filed a Florida personal injury suit against Fish Tale Sales & Services, Chaparral Boats, Inc., Federal-Mogul Corporation and Volvo Penta of Americas, Inc., claiming that they were injured in a flash explosion on their twenty-four-foot Chaparral boat. Chaparral built the boat, which was equipped with an engine manufactured by Volvo and a fuel pump manufactured by Federal-Mogul. Fish Tale sold the boat to the Nices and later performed maintenance on it.

The Nices claimed that the explosion resulted from a leak in the boat's fuel pump. In a complaint, they further alleged that Fish Tale was negligent in failing to properly service, inspect and repair the boat and failing to warn the Nices about the problem with the fuel pump. In similar claims against Chaparral, Federal-Mogul and Volvo, the Nices alleged that these companies were negligent in their design and manufacture of the boat and the fuel pump in particular. During the discovery process, however, the Nices dropped their claims against all defendants except Fish Tale.

Fish Tale later filed a third-party complaint against the other previous defendants, arguing that any liability by the company would be a result of the other defendants' negligence in designing and manufacturing the boat. A trial court denied the company's motion to file the third-party complaint. According to the court, the proper procedure was for Fish Tale to sue the other companies in a separate suit if and when Fish Tale was ultimately found liable.

Continue reading "Court Says Boat Company Can Sue Parts Makers for Liability in Defective Products Case - Fish Tale Sales & Services, Inc. v. Nice" »

Nearly 15 million people went on cruises last year, an increasingly popular vacation option for families around the world, including in Florida, where a number of ships port along the state's coasts every day. But while cruising continues to grow as a family getaway choice, it is important to keep in mind the potential dangers and safety issues associated with a jaunt out on the ocean. There is no better example than the tragic story of the Costa Concordia, the Italian cruise ship that partially sunk after slamming into rocks near Tuscany, killing 23 people a little more than a year ago.

The captain of that ill-fated ship now faces manslaughter charges and the Costa Concordia's owner may ultimately be liable for negligence to the families of those who died. But that won't bring back the dead. In the wake of this disaster, the Cruise Lines International Association has developed stricter safety guidelines intended to further ensure that cruise ships are operated in the safest possible manner and that passengers are prepared in the event of an emergency. CLIA isn't the only one.

"Ongoing innovation in safety has been a hallmark of the cruise industry for decades," Christine Duffy, president and CEO of CLIA said in a statement praising a recent decision by the International Maritime Organization to mandate that cruise ships muster passengers prior to departure. "We remain fully committed as an industry to building on our rich heritage of leadership in improvement of shipboard operations and safety."

Current rules require that a muster for new passengers occur within 24 hours of their embarkation. During the muster, passengers are instructed on safety measures, such as how and when to use a life vest, the use of ship emergency signals and ship evacuation. Proponents of the new rule say that making the muster required before departure allows passengers to be prepared right away.

CLIA is also pushing for additional crew training, including further instruction on operating lifeboats.

Continue reading "New Muster Rule for Cruise Ships in Wake of Italian Disaster" »

Sometimes when you're injured in an accident, it's someone else's fault. Other times, as the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently explained in Arcure v. McCabe, it's your own fault.

Samuel Arcure's right hand was crushed in a boating accident while he was helping dock a 40-foot Rinker vessel that had been towed in after running out of gas. Arcure was standing on a finger pier as the boat came to shore at Fish Tale Marina in Ft. Myers, where he worked. He testified that the boat - The Landshark - came in at a "miniature crawl," when he lost the towline and noticed that the bow of the boat was come straight at him. The boat smashed Arcure's hand against the concrete pylon he had been gripping, causing an injury that required several surgeries and resulted in permanent damage.

Arcure sued William McCabe, the boat's owner, and Tow Boat US, the company that towed the boat to the dock, for negligence. A bench trial took place in late 2012, during which a number of witnesses and experts testified.

Testifying as an expert on behalf of Arcure, Captain Mitchell Stoller told the court that McCabe was responsible for handling the boat safely because he was the vessel's captain. He further testified that someone on the boat should have thrown a bow line to Arcure as the boat was docking and that the accident was likely caused by failure to catch the dock with the tow line. Meanwhile, accident reconstruction expert Robert Miller testified for McCabe, stating that Arcure should have known based on experience not to place his hand between the boat and a stationary object.

The court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that they did not owe a duty to Arcure to protect him from the injury. "While McCabe and Tow Boat US had a duty to avoid harm to others, their duty did not extend to a person who placed a part of his body between a vessel under tow or coasting and an inanimate object," the court explained. Because both McCabe and the tow boat captain acted reasonably in docking the boat, the court found they could not be held liable for the accident.

Continue reading "Court Rules Against Ft. Myers Marina Worker Whose Hand Was Crushed in Docking Accident - Arcure v. McCabe" »