South Florida Injury Law Blog

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 " »

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" »

Many cruise goers already know that a ship operator can be held liable for injuries incurred by passengers onboard. In the tragic case of Chaparro v. Carnival, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explains that this liability may also extend to injuries that happen off the ship at ports of call.

Liz Marie Chaparro was killed in a bizarre accident during a Carnival cruise vacation. Traveling with her parents and brother, the Chaparros left the ship for an island excursion while docked at St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. Although ship staff recommended the excursion, it was not sponsored by Carnival. The family was traveling in bus, returning from the excursion when the they were stopped in traffic related to a nearby funeral for a local gang member. Gang-related gun violence broke out while the bus was stopped and Liz Marie was shot in the cross-fire.

Liz Marie's parents sued Carnival in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which sits in Miami, claiming that the company was negligent in failing to warn them about crime problems, gang violence and public shootings on St. Thomas and particularly near Coki Beach, where the excursion took place. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet minimal pleading requirements because their complaint was limited to conclusory statements, rather than factual allegations.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, finding that Carnival has a legal duty to warn passengers of known dangers at ports of call. The Court explained that "a shipowner owes the duty of exercising reasonable care towards those lawfully aboard the vessel who are not members of the crew," quoting the Supreme Court's 1959 decision in Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique. That duty, according to the court, includes a duty to warn of known dangers in places off the ship where passengers are invited or may be reasonably expected to visit.

While Carnival argued that it could not have reasonably foreseen Liz Marie's death by gang cross-fire, plaintiffs claimed that the company was aware of gang-related violence and crime, including public shootings, in the area. According to the court, the issue of foreseeability was best considered at trial.

Continue reading "Court Says Cruise Company Might Be Liable for Death at Port of Call - Chaparro v. Carnival" »

In Stewart-Patterson v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., a federal court in South Florida considers some of the legal theories under which a person injured in an accident on a cruise ship may sue for damages.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Stewart-Patterson was a passenger aboard a Celebrity cruise ship when she slipped on a wet spot on a staircase and fell, fracturing her ankle. She alleged that Celebrity required her to see a doctor in Colombia following the accident as a condition of her remaining on the boat for the rest of the cruise. This doctor, according to Plaintiff, misdiagnosed the injury, thereby slowing her recovery.

Stewart-Patterson sued Celebrity in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging: a) negligence in failing to safely maintain the staircase; b) negligent mode of operation in failing to reduce or eliminate the dangerous condition before the accident; and c) medical negligence in failing to use reasonable care by forcing her to see the Colombian doctor.

The Court denied Celebrity's motion to dismiss the medical negligence claim, finding that Plaintiff adequately plead that the company failed to exercise reasonable care. Although cruise ships are generally not liable for the negligence of an on-board doctor, the Court explained that "when a carrier undertakes to employ a doctor aboard ship for its passengers' convenience, the carrier has a duty to employ a doctor who is competent and duly qualified."

The Court ruled that this duty may also extend to claims regarding the ship doctor's decision referring a passenger to a shore-side doctor. The Court noted that Plaintiff alleged that Celebrity required her to see the doctor, sign a liability waiver, or leave the ship. "Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in choosing the Colombian doctor and thus is liable for any injuries resulting from that decision."

Continue reading "Injured on a Cruise Ship? Florida Court Explains Negligence Claims for Injuries at Sea - Stewart-Patterson v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc." »

In many ways, an injury sustained at sea is like an injury sustained on dry land: it hurts and can be expensive to treat. Suing for an injury sustained while aboard a ship - or while getting on or off it - is a slightly more tricky proposition, however. The first hurdle is finding the right court in which to file suit. In Vincenzo v. Carnival, the Southern District of Florida explains the basic tests for determining whether a person injured at sea can sue for damages in federal court.

At the end of a four-day cruise aboard the Carnival Imagination, Plaintiff Antoinette Vincenzo was injured when she fell at the Port of Miami. Vincenzo and her husband filed suit against Carnival Corporation, the ship's owner, in the District Court for the Southern District of Miami, a federal court. Plaintiffs alleged that the company's negligence caused Ms. Vincenzo's injury.

Carnival filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. In order to invoke a federal court's admiralty jurisdiction, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of both the "location test" and the "connection test." The former requires a plaintiff to establish that either the "tort occurred on navigable water" of the "injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water," according to the court. The connection test requires a plaintiff to show that the incident has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and that the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to maritime activity.

In this case, Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Vincenzo's injury occurred while "exiting the port area." This, injury, according to the court, could not be considered to have occurred in navigable water, nor could it have been caused by the ship that Plaintiffs had just left. "Since the location condition for such jurisdiction is not satisfied, Plaintiffs are unable to successfully invoke admiralty jurisdiction for a tort claim," the court ruled.

Additionally, Plaintiffs' claim that the cruise line's forum selection clause nevertheless granted the court jurisdiction over the matter was unfounded, according to the court. Printed on Plaintiffs' cruise ticket, the forum selection clause provides that any dispute be litigated in either the Southern District, or, in the event the Southern District lacks jurisdiction, in a Miami-Dade court. While the court agreed with Plaintiffs that the clause was valid, it further determined that the clause directed that the action be filed in local court, because the federal court lacked jurisdiction.

Continue reading "Jurisdiction in Florida Cruise Ship Negligence Cases - Vincenzo v. Carnival" »

In Johnson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled against a person who was injured while partaking in one of the ship's on-board activities.

Plaintiff Charlene Johnson was injured in Jan. 2010 while a passenger aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, "Oasis of the Sea." She fractured her right ankle during a FlowRider simulated surfing machine lesson provided on the boat when the instructor let go of the board on which she was standing and Plaintiff subsequently fell. Plaintiff filed a personal injury action for damages against Royal Caribbean in federal court.

Prior to trial, Royal Caribbean filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's suit was barred by a waiver agreement that she signed before the FlowRider lesson. According to the court, the electronic "Onboard Activity Waiver" she signed required Plaintiff to "fully release and forever discharge" Defendant from "any and all actions" arising from "any accident or injury" in any way connected to Plaintiff's use of the FlowRider. The three-page agreement further stated that "rider/participant can, intentionally or inadvertently, move quickly and unexpectedly from side to side or any direction, which will necessarily result in falls or wipeouts from the bodyboard and which may cause serious injury."

The court agreed with Royal Caribbean, finding that the waiver agreement was valid and enforceable and barred Plaintiff's suit for injury resulting from her use of the FlowRider machine.

Although 6 U.S.C. Section 30509 prevents the owner of a ship transporting people between U.S. ports from relying on a waiver clause to limit its liability for injury or death caused by the owner or its employees, the court found that the matter was not subject to general maritime law. "In order for admiralty jurisdiction to exist, two tests must be satisfied: the location test and the connection test," the court ruled. The location test considers whether the incident at issue occurred in navigable waters. Under the connection test, on the other hand,"(1) the incident causing the alleged harm must have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce; and (2) the activity giving rise to the incident must bear a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity."

Continue reading "Florida Court Upholds Waiver in Cruise Ship Activity Injury Case - Johnson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises" »