### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 22, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 15321

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 0 - 0 2 5 2 3 - CV- J EM J A N E D O E ,
P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t- C r o s s A p p e lle e , v ersu s C E L E B R I T Y C R U I S E S , I N C ., in p e r s o n a m , Z E N I T H S H I P P I N G C O R P O R A T I O N , in p e r s o n a m , A P O L L O S H I P C H A N D L E R S , I N C ., in p e r s o n a m , C E L E B R I T Y C A T E R I N G S E R V I C E S P A R T N E R S H I P , in p e r s o n a m , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s - C r o s s - A p p e lla n ts , B A R I S A Y D I N , in p e r s o n a m , M /V Z E N I T H , h e re n g in e s , b o ile r s , ta c k le , e tc ., in r e m , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Ho no ra bleRic ha rd Mil ls, Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Judg efo r t heCe ntra l D ist

ri c t of I lli no is, * sitti ngby designation. 2

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2004) B ef ore H U L L and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. * H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s a ppe a l pr e s e nt s the que s t i on of w ha ts t a nda r d of

c a r e gove r ns w he n a c rui s e l i ne ’ s c r e w m e m be rs e xua l l y ba t t e r s a pa s s e nge r . I n a pr e - tr i a l rul i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha ta c rui s e l i ne , a s a c om m on c a r r i e r , ow e s a duty of prot ec t i on and saf

e tra nspo rtt o i t s pas se ng er s, and t hu s i s s tri ct l y l i abl e f or cr ew m em ber a ss aul t s on p as se ng er s. T he j ury tri al focuse d o n w hether the pl ai nt i ff c o n s e n te d o rw a s s e x u a lly b a tte r e d b y th e c r e w m e m b e r . A f t e rthe ve r di c ta nd e ntr y of j udgm e ntf

orthe pl a i nt i f

f , the di s tr i c tc our ts ua s p o n te r a is e d a n e n tir e ly n e w is s u e r e g a r d in g w h ic h o f th e f o u rd e f e n d a n ts a c tu a lly e m pl oy e d the e r r a ntc r e w m e m be ra nd w he the rtha te m pl oy e rw a s a c om m on carri er. S o o n th ereafter, th e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed a R u l e 5 0 (b ) j u d g m en tas a m a t t e rof l a w t o a l l de f

e nda nt s , c onc l udi ng tha tthe pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o pr ove a ny si ng l e def

endantw as bo th a com m on ca rr i erand t he em pl oyerof the cr ew m em berCelebrity Cruises, Inc. is the operator of theM/V Z ENI TH; Z enith Shipping Corporation 1 is theowne r o f t

heve sse l; a

nd Ap oll o Sh ip C ha

ndle rs prov ide s c e rt a in s e rv ic e s a nd pe rs onne l to Ce lebrity Cate ringSe rv ic e s Pa

rt ne rs hip , whic h in

tur n p ro vid e s f

oo d a nd be ve rag ese rv ic e s to Ce lebrity Cr uis e s’ ve sse ls. Do elate r add e d Ce lebrity Cate ringSe rv ic e s Pa

rt ne rs hip a s th efo ur

th 3 a n d th e r e f

o r e th a t n o d e f

e n d a n t w a s lia b le f

o rth e c r e w m e m b e r ’s a s s a u lt. A f t e rr e vi e w a nd or a l a r gum e nt , w e r e ve r s e the R ul e 50( b) e ntr y of j udgm e nt f orthe de f

e nda nt s be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d a uthor i ty t o e nt e rj udgm e nt unde rR ul e 50( b) on a ne w gr ound notr a i s e d by a ny pa r ty pr i ort o s ubm i s s i on of the ca se t o t he j ury. W e a l so re i nst at e a nd af fi rm the j ury’ s ver di ctfor the pl ai nt i ff b e c a u s e w e c o n c lu d e th a t u n d e rf e d e r a l m a r itim e la w , a c ru is e lin e is s tr ic tly lia b le for c re w m em ber a ss aul t s on p as se ng er s duri ng the crui se . I . P RO CE DU RA L HI S T OR Y O n J u ly 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 , P la in tif f J a n e D o e , a s a p a s s e n g e ro n th e c ru is e s h ip M /V Z E N I T H , e m b a r k e d o n a o n e - w e e k r o u n d - tr ip c ru is e f r o m N e w Y o r k C ity to B er m ud a. D uri ng the crui se , D oe re po rt ed t o t he crui se l i ne’ s m edi ca l st af f that B ar i s A ydi n, a c re w m em ber a nd D oe’ s di nn erw ai t er , raped h er . T he m edi ca l st af f tr e a te d D o e , a n d th e c ru is e lin e f le w h e rh o m e f

r o m B e r m u d a o n J u ly 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 . A . O r i g i na l C o m pl a i nt O n J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 , D o e f ile d a n in e - c o u n t c o m p la in t a g a in s t d e f e n d a n ts C e l e br i ty C rui s e s , I nc . , Z e ni th S hi ppi ng C orpor a t i on, A pol l o S hi p C ha ndl e r s , a nd a g a i n s tth e M / V ZEN I TH , h e re n g i n e s , b o i l e r s , t a c k l e , e t c . , i n r e m. 1de fend ant.

The orig inal complaint contained alleg ations about the neg ligent treatment Doerec eived 2 from the c ruise line’s medic al staff and security

personne l after

the ra pe. The se claims are not at iss uein t his a pp e a l. A s n ote d late r, thedis tric t c ourt dis mis se d p art s o f D oe ’s c omp laint wi th prejudice(includingher breac h of contract claims), a nd Doe ha s not appealed that dismissal. Doe’ s complaint also named B aris Aydin, the crew member , as a de fenda nt, but he was 3 never serve d with proce ss and was not a defendant at trial. 4 B a s e d on A y di n’ s r a pe of D oe , the c om pl a i nta l l e ge d one c ounte a c h of se xu al as sa ul t , se xu al bat t ery, and n egl i gence, tw o cou nt s of bre ac h o f the cont ra ct o f c a r r i a g e , two c o u n t s o f i n t e n t i o n a l i n f

l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s tr e s s , a n d two co u n t s o f n eg l i g en ti n fl i ct i o n o f em o t i o n al d i stress. 2 T he defendant s c ol l ec t i vel y m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the com pl ai nt , cont endi ng that they a re no tl i abl e f

or A ydi n’ s i nt ent i on al m i sc on du ct . D ef endant s a rgued t hat the y a r e l i a bl e ( 1) onl y f orthe i row n br e a c h of

r e a s ona bl e c a r e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd ( 2) onl y f orthe i re m pl oy e e s ’ i nt e nt i ona l c onduc tw hi l e a c t i ng w i th i n th e sco p e o f th ei r em p l o ym en tan d i n fu rth eran ce o f th e d efen d an t s’ b u si n ess p u rp o ses. D enyi ng defe nd ant s’ m ot i on i n p ar t , the di stri ctcourtrul ed thata c rui se l i ne, a s a c om m on c a r r i e r , i s s tr i c t l y l i a bl e f orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s on pa s s e nge r s . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce part s of D oe’ s c om pl ai ntand al l ow ed D oe t o a m e nd he rc om pl a i ntt o a l l e ge vi c a r i ous ors tr i c tl i a bi l i ty c a us e s of a c t i on. 3 B. Thi r d A m e nde d C o m pl a i nt5

D oe am ended h ercom pl ai ntthree t i m es . T ho se am endm ent s ( 1) added C e le b r ity C a te r in g S e r v ic e s P a r tn e r s h ip a s a d e f e n d a n t, ( 2 ) a lle g e d m o r e s p e c if ic f a c ts o n tw o th e o r ie s o f

n e g lig e n c e , a n d ( 3 ) a d d e d f o u rv ic a r io u s o rs tr ic t lia b ility c ount s . T he thi r d a m e nde d c om pl a i nta l l e ge d f i ve c a us e s of

a c t i on a ga i ns ta l l f

our de f e nda nt s : ( 1) s e ve r a l the or i e s of ne gl i ge nc e ; ( 2) vi c a r i ous ors tr i c tl i a bi l i ty f or A y di n’ s s e xua l a s s a ul tof D oe ; ( 3) vi c a r i ous ors tr i c tl i a bi l i ty f orA y di n’ s ba t t e r y of D oe; (4) vi ca ri ou s or s tri ctl i abi l i ty f or A ydi n’ s i nt ent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di s tr e s s a ga i ns tD oe ; a nd ( 4) vi c a r i ous ors tr i c tl i a bi l i ty f orA y di n’ s ne gl i ge nt i nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di stre ss up on D oe. I n e a c h s tr ic t liab ility c o u n t, D o e a lle g e d th a t a ll d e f e n d a n ts “a r e r e s p o n s ib le a nd/ ora r e s tr i c t l y l i a bl e f orthe a c t s of

the i rr e s pe c t i ve e m pl oy e e s , s e r va nt s a nd/ or ag en t s, i n cl u d i n g d efen d an tA yd i n , ” as fo l l o w s: A s a cr ew m em ber of the M / V Z E N IT H , A ydi n o w ed a dut y t o p rot ec t an d care fo r th e p l ai n t i ff’ s safety. H e, i n st ead , d el i b erat el y, know i ngl y a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y br e a c he d thi s duty by s e xua l l y a s s a ul t i ng, r a p i n g a n d / o rb a t t e r i n g th e p l a i n t i f f . . . . D e f e n d a n t s Ce l e b r i ty , ZSC, M / V Z E N I T H , A pol l o a nd/ orC e l e br i ty C a t e r i ng a r e r e s pons i bl e f or a nd/ ora r e s tr i c t l y orvi c a r i ous l y l i a bl e f orthe a c t s of

the i rr e s pe c t i ve e m pl oy e e s , s e r va nt s a nd/ ora ge nt s , i nc l udi ng de f e nda ntA y di n. A ft erthe rul i ng on the defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss and t he fi l i ng of the thi rd am ended com pl ai nt , the part i es l i t i gat ed the ca se as a t ortca se . C . P r e - T r i al S t i p u l at i on an d T r i al6

O n O c to b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , th e p a r tie s e n te r e d in to a p r e - tr ia l s tip u la tio n . N ot abl y, they s t i pu l at ed that“ [f ] or the pu rposes of the forthcom i ng tri al , the part i es w i l l try on l y tho se i ss ues r el at i ng t o t he stri ct(vi ca ri ou s) l i abi l i ty s t andard as a r t i c ul a t e d a nd or de r e d by [ the di s tr i c tc our t ] i n [ i t s ] O r de rda t e d F e brua r y 26, 20 01 . ” S peci fi ca l l y, the part i es ’ st i pu l at i on st at ed thatthese i ss ues of f ac t r e m a in e d to b e litig a te d :

A . A s t o t he i ss ue of rape, se xu al as sa ul tand b att ery, w hether ornotthe P l a i nt i f

f c ons e nt e d t o the s e xua l c ont a c tw i th A y di n. B . A s t o d am ages , the preci se nature a nd ext entof the dam ages c la im e d . C . T he P l a i nt i f

f ha s a c a us e of

a c t i on f orI nt e nt i ona l I nf

l i c t i on of E m ot i ona l D i s tr e s s . T he pa r t i e s di s a gr e e w he the rthi s c a us e of a c tio n is s u b s u m e d w ith in th e s tr ic t lia b ility c o u n t o rw h e th e rit s h o u ld b e p r e s e n te d s e p a r a te ly a t tr ia l. N o o ne ra i se d a l egal or fa cti ss ue abou tw hi ch of the four defendant s e m pl oyed A y d in o ra b o u t w h e th e rA y d in ’s e m p lo y e rw a s a c o m m o n c a r r ie r . I n s te a d , a s to the s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty c l a i m , the de f e nda nt s c hos e t o l i t i ga t e onl y w he the rD oe c o n s e n te d to th e s e x u a l in te r c o u r s e a n d th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s . T he c a s e pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l , a nd a tthe c l os e of the pl a i nt i f

f’ s e vi de nc e , the defe nd ant s f

i l ed three se para t e w ri t t en m ot i on s f or j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw p u rsu an tt o R u l e 5 0 (a) o f th e F ed eral R u l es o f C i v i l P ro ced u re. S p eci fi cal l y, de f e nda nt s ’ R ul e 50( a ) m ot i ons a r gue d: ( 1) tha ta s t o D oe ’ s i nt e nt i ona l i nf l i c t i on of e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s c l a i m s , D oe f a i l e d t o s how a n i nde pe nde ntt or t( othe rtha n the7

a l l e ge d r a pe ) r i s i ng t o the l e ve l of “ outr a ge ous ne s s ” r e qui r e d unde rF l or i da l a w ; ( 2) thatas t o t he as sa ul tand b att ery c l ai m s, D oe fa i l ed t o p rovi de suff i ci entevi dence f r om w hi c h a j ur y c oul d f i nd tha tA y di n i nt e nde d t o ba t t e rora s s a ul tD oe ; a nd ( 3) thatas t o t he stri ctl i abi l i ty c l ai m s, “ no tw i thst andi ng [the pre-tri al ] rul i ng . . . that s tr ic t lia b ility a p p lie s ,” th e “D e f e n d a n ts r e n e w th e a r g u m e n ts p u t f o r th in th e ir M o tio n ( s ) to D is m is s .” I n o th e rw o r d s , th e th ir d R u le 5 0 ( a ) m o tio n r e n e w e d th e ir obj ec t i on s t o t he stri ctl i abi l i ty s t andard i nsofaras i tappl i ed t o com m on ca rr i er s a t all. A g ain , n o d ef

en d an t ev er ra ised an y iss u e r elatin g to th e s tatu s o f A yd in ’s e m pl oy e ra s a c om m on c a r r i e r . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w on D oe ’ s e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s c l a i m s , butde ni e d the o th e rtw o m o tio n s . A tthe cl ose of a l l evi dence, the defendant s ora l l y “ re new ed al l of [thei r] pr e vi ous l y de ni e d di r e c t e d ve r di c tm ot i ons . ” T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the de f e nda nt s ’ R ul e 50( a ) m ot i ons a ga i n a nd s ubm i t t e d D oe ’ s s e xua l a s s a ul ta nd sex u al b at t ery cl ai m s t o th e j u ry. A s t o the s e xua l ba t t e r y , the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ur y tha tthe defe nd ant s w er e s tri ct l y l i abl e i f D oe prov ed ac tual se xu al penetra t i on and t hat

“ th atact ” w as d o n e w i th o u th er co n sen t , as fo l l o w s: S exu al B atte ry O n P l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m fo r sex u al b at t ery, D efen d an t s,8

C E L E B R I T Y C R UI S E S , Z E NI T H S HI P P I NG C OR P OR AT I ON , AP OL L O S HI P C HA ND L E R S , I NC . , a n d C E L E B R I T Y C AT E R I NG S E R V IC E S P A R T N E R S H IP ar e s tri ct l y l i abl e t o P l ai nt i ff for s exual ba t t e r y i f P l a i nt i f f s how s , by the gr e a t e rw e i ghtof the e vi de nc e , the f ol l ow i ng: T hatB ar i s A ydi n, w i th h i s s exual organ, penetra t ed or had uni on w i th the va gi na of P l a i nt i f f ; a nd T hatac tw as do ne w i tho utthe consentof P l ai nt i ff . (e m ph as i s a dd ed). In cont ra st , as t o t he se xu al as sa ul t , the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury thatthe defendant s w er e s tri ct l y l i abl e i f D oe prov ed A ydi n (1) “ i nt ended to co m m ita s ex u al b attery ” a n d th at “th e a tt em p ted ac t” w as d o n e w ith o u t D o e’s consent , or (2) “ i nt ended t o cause the pl ai nt i ff t o fea r a se xu al bat t ery” and t hat

“ th e at t em p t ed act ” w as d o n e w i th o u th er co n sen t , as fo l l o w s: S e x u a l A s s a u lt O n P l ai nt i ff’ s c l ai m for s exual as sa ul t , D ef endant s . . . ar e stri ct l y l i abl e f

or se xu al as sa ul ti f P l ai nt i ff show s, by the great er w ei gh tof the evi dence, ei ther: a ) T ha tB a r i s A y di n i nt e nde d t o c om m i ta s e xua l ba t t e r y on the pe r s on of

P l a i nt i f f ; a nd tha tthe a t t e m pt e d a c tw a s done w i thoutthe c ons e ntof

P l a i nt i f f ; or b) T hatB ar i s A ydi n i nt ended t o cause P l ai nt i ff t o fea r a n i m m edi at e s exual bat t ery or r ape; and t hatthe att em pt ed ac tw as do ne w i tho utthe consentof P l ai nt i ff . (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hu s, as char ged, a f i nd i ng of se xu al bat t ery r equi re d actual pe ne tr a t i on w i thoutD oe ’ s c ons e nt ; w he r e a s , a f i ndi ng of s e xua l a s s a ul tr e qui r e d a sp ec ific in ten t t o co m m ita c rim e a n d o n ly an “att em p ted ac t” w ith o u t D o e’s c o n s e n t.9

O n N ov em ber 22, 20 02 , the j ury r eturned a verdi ctfor D oe on her s exual bat t ery c l ai m , aw ar ded h er$1 m i l l i on i n com pensat ory dam ages , and al l ocat ed f a ul te qua l l y a m ong the f ourde f e nda nt s . T he j ur y r e tur ne d a ve r di c tf orthe d e f e n d a n ts o n D o e ’s s e x u a l a s s a u lt c la im . W hen t he j ury a nn ou nced i t s ver di ct , the defendant s i m m edi at el y s ou gh tre s ubm i s s i on of

the c l a i m s a nd de f

e ns e s “ i n l i ghtof

the s e e m i ngl y i nc ons i s t e nt ve r di c t . ” A f

t e rhe a r i ng a r gum e nta nd r e vi e w i ng the m e m or a nda f i l e d by the pa r t i e s on thi s poi nt , the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the de f e nda nt s ’ r e que s tt o ha ve the j ury r evi si ti t s ver di ct . O n N ov em ber 27, 20 02 , the di stri ctcourtent er ed fi nal j u d g m en to n th e v erd i cti n fav o r o f D o e an d ag ai n stal l d efen d an t s. D . Po s t - J udg m e nt M o t i o ns O n D e c e m be r12, 2002, the de f e nda nt s f i l e d thr e e s e pa r a t e m ot i ons : ( 1) f or r e m i t t i turof

the a m ountof

the j ur y ve r di c t , ( 2) f

ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on the al l eg ed l y i n co n si st en tv erd i ct s an d sev eral al l eg ed l y erro n eo u s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s, a n d ( 3 ) f o rju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w u n d e rR u le 5 0 ( b ) . T h e d e f e n d a n ts ’ R u le 5 0 ( b ) m o tio n r e n e w e d th e iro b je c tio n s to th e p r e - tr ia l ru lin g a b o u t s tr ic t lia b ility and argued t hatA ydi n’ s c on du ctw as ou t si de the sc op e of hi s e m pl oym entand t hat d e f e n d a n ts w e r e th u s n o t v ic a r io u s ly o rs tr ic tly lia b le f o rh is a c ts . A l t ernat i vel y, even i f the stri ctl i abi l i ty s t andard appl i ed, defe nd ant s a rgued10

tha ts tr i c tl i a bi l i ty r e qui r e s a n i nt e nt i ona l t or ta nd tha ts tr i c tl i a bi l i ty c oul d not a t t a c h ba s e d on A y di n’ s s e xua l ba t t e r y be c a us e the c our t ’ s j ur y i ns truc t i on on se xu al bat t ery di d n oti ncl ud e a n i nt entel em ent . A cc ordi ng t o t he defendant s, on ce th e ju r y f o u n d f o rth e m o n th e is s u e o f

s e x u a l a s s a u lt ( th e o n ly o n e o f th e tw o to r ts th atco n t ai n ed a sp eci fi c i n t en tel em en t ), d efen d an t s w ere en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w . A tthe M ar ch 18 , 20 03 , hear i ng on these po st -j ud gm entm ot i on s, the di stri ct courtra i se d, sua s po nt e, the i ss ue of w hether a ny on e of the four defendant s w as both a c om m on c a r r i e ra nd A y di n’ s e m pl oy e r , a nd or de r e d f ur the rbr i e f

i ng on the i ss ue. Iti s und i sput ed thatattri al the defendant s neverm ov ed un der R ul e 50(a) f o rju d g m e n t o n th e b a s is th a t D o e h a d f a ile d to p r o v e w h ic h o f

th e f o u rd e f e n d a n ts a c tua l l y e m pl oy e d A y di n a nd w he the rtha tpa r t i c ul a rde f e nda ntw a s a c om m on c a r r ie r . O n S e pt e m be r23, 2003, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de rgr a nt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ R ul e 50( b) m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w buts ol e l y on the n ew g ro u n d th at n o n e o f th e d ef en d an ts w as b o th a c o m m o n ca rr ier a n d A yd in ’s e m p lo y e r , a n d th a t s in c e n o d e f e n d a n t m e t b o th r e q u ir e m e n ts , n o d e f e n d a n t c o u ld be l i a bl e . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o va c a t e d i t s N ove m be r17, 2002, j udgm e nti n f a vorShortly before trial, this casewas re assigned to a diff erent district court judg e. Thus, the 4 judgewho made thepre- trial rulingas to strict liability was diff erent from the judg e who pre sid e d o ve r t

hetria l and

gra nte d th eRul e50 (b ) j udgme nt a s a matter o f l aw f

or thede fend ants . 11 of D oe a nd e nt e r e d a n a m e nde d f i na l j udgm e nti n f

a vorof a l l de f e nda nt s . T he

4 di s tr i c tc our tthe n de ni e d a s m ootthe de f e nda nt s ’ othe rpos t -

j udgm e ntm ot i ons f

or r e m ittitu ra n d f

o rn e w tr ia l. D o e a p p ea ls fr o m th is am en d ed fin al ju d g m en t an d th e d istrict co u rt’s S e p te m b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , o r d e rg r a n tin g ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w to d e f

e n d a n ts unde rR ul e 50( b) ba s e d on l a c k of pr oof tha ta ny one de f

e nda ntw a s both a c om m on c a r r i e ra nd A y di n’ s e m pl oy e r . D e f e nda nt s c r os s - a ppe a l , a s s e r t i ng tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in im p o s in g a s tr ic t lia b ility s ta n d a r d f o rc r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts a n d in d e n y in g th e irR u le 5 0 ( a ) a n d 5 0 ( b ) m o tio n s th a t r e n e w e d th e iro b je c tio n s to tha ts tr i c tl i a bi l i ty s t a nda r d. B e f o r e e x a m in in g th e is s u e s o n a p p e a l, w e r e c o u n t th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l.

I I . T RI AL E V I DE NC E I n J u l y o f

1 9 9 9 , B a r i s Ay d i n l i v e d a b o a r d th e c ru i s e s h i p M/ V Z E NI T H, and w orked as a shi p w ai t er16 ho urs a day, se ven d ay s a w ee k. A ydi n w orked br e a kf a s t , l unc h, di nne ra nd the m i dni ghtbuf f e t , a nd s e r ve d the s a m e s e tof p a s s e n g e r s a t d in n e re v e r y n ig h t f o rth e d u r a tio n o f

th e irc ru is e . T he de f e nda nt s m a i nl y ut i l i z e d a “ t i ppi ng s y s t e m ” f orpa y i ng A y di n a ndDoe c laims that cruise lines, such a s the defendants’, larg ely hire foreign nationals, such 5 as Aydin, as waiter s on their vessels, but that cr uise lines do not pay

them. Rather, c ruise lines s etu p a t ab l e a s s i gnm entan d

t ip p i n g s y s t eman d

re l y o np as s en ger s ’ p ayi n g th e w ai t er s thro u gh that tipping system. Further, the de fenda nts’ waiter s work on the ship but live elsewhere, a nd thus passeng ers (who pay direc tly defendants’ waiters) have little chanc e of obtaining jurisdiction in American c ourts over the m or of ser ving process on them e ven if jurisdiction e xists . Aydin

is a Turkish natio nal, a

nd a s n ote d e arl ie r, Do ehe rs e lf wa s una bleto l oc ateAydin to s e rv ehim . 12 a ppa r e nt l y othe rs i m i l a r l y - s i tua t e d c r e w m e m be r s . P a s s e nge r s w e r e a s s i gne d t o the s a m e d in n e rta b le a n d w a ite re a c h n ig h t. T h e g u e s ts w h o m A y d in s e r v e d a t h is t a bl e s l e f tm one y i n e nve l ope s orga ve i tt o hi m pe r s ona l l y . H e m a de $800- $1, 000 per w ee k i n t i ps. In addi t i on t o t i pp i ng hi m , A ydi n’ s a ss i gn ed di nn erpass engers f i l l e d oute va l ua t i ons a tthe e nd of the c rui s e . T he s e e va l ua t i ons de t e r m i ne d how m a ny t a bl e s /pa s s e nge r s A y di n w a s a s s i gne d, a nd the r e f or e how m uc h m one y he m a de i n t i ps . A y di n t e s t i f i e d tha tthe r e i s a di r e c tr e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the sa t i sf ac t i on of hi s pas se ng er s a nd hi s i ncom e. 5 P la in tif f D o e p u r c h a s e d a tic k e t f o ra r o u n d - tr ip c ru is e f

r o m N e w Y o r k to B e r m u d a a b o a r d th e M /V Z E N I T H . D o e a n d f iv e o f h e rf r ie n d s , a ll in th e ire a r ly tw e n tie s , w e n t o n th e c ru is e w ith f o u rp a r e n ts . T h e irg r o u p w a s a s s ig n e d to a ta b le in th e d in in g a r e a w h e r e A y d in w a ite d o n th e m a t d in n e re a c h n ig h t. O n the thi r d m or ni ng of the c rui s e , the M / V Z E N I T H a r r i ve d i n H a m i l t on, B e r m u d a , a s c h e d u le d p o r t- o f - c a ll. A t d in n e r , o n e o f

D o e ’s f r ie n d s a s k e d A y d in

“ i f he knew of any goo d p l ac es t o g o o uton the i sl and b ec ause the cr ew had b ee n13

there before. ” A ydi n sug gest ed thatthey go t o t he O as i s di sc o cl ub , w hi ch they d id . A ydi n’ s s ug gest i on w as no tsurpri si ng beca use w hen t he M / V Z E N IT H w as in p o r t a t H a m ilto n , B e r m u d a , it w a s c u s to m a r y f o rth e c r e w a n d p a s s e n g e r s to m in g le o f

f th e s h ip a t th e O a s is . I n d e e d , th e O a s is is a s h o r t, f iv e - to - te n - m in u te w a lk f r o m th e s h ip , a n d th e s h ip is c le a r ly v is ib le f r o m th e c lu b . W h ile th e O a s is cl oses af t er3: 00 a. m . , A ydi n t es t i fi ed thatno rm al l y c re w and p as se ng er s s t ay o u t s i d e f o ra wh i l e a f

t e rc l o s i n g t i m e . “ T h e r e a r e l o t s o f p e o p l e wh o s i td o wn a r ound a nd c ha ta nd ha ve f un . . . . T hi s i s w ha tus ua l l y the pe opl e do a f t e rthe cl ub cl oses , they s t ay there and they s i tdo w n. T hey hang o ut , t al k. T hey c hat . ” T he s hi p’ s c hi e f

s e c ur i ty of

f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha t“ i tw oul d be unus ua l nott o s e e a ny p a s s e n g e ro rc r e w ” o n F r o n t S tr e e t n e a rth e c ru is e te r m in a l o rth e f r o n t o f th e O a s is a t3: 00 or4: 00 i n the m or ni ng. W h e n Do e ’ s g r o u p a r r i v e d a tth e Oa s i s , th e y f o u n d s e v e r a l M / V ZENI TH c r e w m e m be r s the r e , i nc l udi ng A y di n w hom the y r e c ogni z e d a s the i rw a i t e r . T he s i x w om e n a nd thr e e m a l e c r e w m e m be r s , i nc l udi ng A y di n, “ pr e t ty m uc h hung out t og ether . . . basi ca l l y havi ng a goo d t i m e, danci ng and d ri nk i ng . ” T he O a s i s c l os e d s om e t i m e a f t e r3: 00 a . m . D oe ’ s gr oup of w om e n a nd the thr e e c r e w m e m be r s w e ntout s i de . T w o w om e n de c i de d t o r e tur n t o the s hi p, a ndThe e x tent of the plaintiff’ s inebriation and her re ason for needinghelp were conte sted 6 at trial. Aydin claims that Doe just neede d a bathroom, and she a ppeared “dr

unk” but “she seeme d very

happy .” Doeclaims that she wa s visibly intox icated to the point of na usea, w as attempting to vomit in the street, c ould not walk or stand without support and that Aydin said he wo uld “ he lp [h e r] f

ind a bathroo m to throwup .”In th elight m os t f avo ra bleto D oe , w emus t consider her as a

sick passeng er in distress who ne eded a ssistance ba ck to the ship. Doe’ s best friend a

nd ship roommate had no qualms or reser vations about letting D oe 7 walk o ff wi th Aydin

“ [b]e c a us e. . . h ewa s a

c rew m e mber. Hewa s th e reto– hewa s g oin gto help her .” She would not havelet her f riend walk off with a stra ng er. 14 A y di n e s c or t e d the m on the s hor tw a l k ba c k t o the s hi p. A y di n the n r e tur ne d t o the gr oup out s i de the O a s i s a nd di s c ove r e d D oe l y i ng on the gr ound i n ne e d of a s s i s t a nc e . A y di n of

f e r e d t o he l p he rf

i nd a ba thr oom , a nd the y a t t e m pt e d t o go 6 b a c k to th e O a s is , b u t f

o u n d it c lo s e d . T h e y th e n w a lk e d b a c k d o w n F r o n t S tr e e t in the di r e c t i on of

the s hi p. 7 D oe thoughts he w a s goi ng ba c k t o the s hi p a nd di d notf e e l a ny c onc e r n on the w al k “ [b] ec ause I trust ed hi m . H e w as a c re w m em ber a nd I kno w [s i c] he w as go i ng t o t ake m e s om ew here t o u se the bathroo m t o t hrow up . ” D oe further t e s t i f i e d tha t“ the onl y r e a s on [ s he w a s ] w i l l i ng t o e ve n go f ora bl oc k a nd a ha l f

or tw o b l ock w al k w i th [A ydi n] w as beca use he w orked o n t he shi p. ” A y d in a n d D o e w a lk e d p a s t th e s h ip to a s m a ll p u b lic p a r k . T h e s h ip is c l e a r l y vi s i bl e thr oughoutthe w a l k, a nd one ne e d onl y t a ke “ f ourorf i ve s t e ps out of the park, st and o n Q ueen S tre etand t he shi p [i s] ri gh tthere l oo ki ng atyou. ” T he j ury f

ou nd thati n t he park A ydi n com m i t t ed se xu al bat t ery a gai nstD oe, w hi ch15

th e c o u r t h a d c h a r g e d a s s e x u a l p e n e tr a tio n w ith o u t h e rc o n s e n t. A c c o r d in g to D oe, A ydi n p ushed h ert o t he grou nd , bi ther l i p, and sho ved h i s f i ng er s i n h er m o u th to k e e p h e rq u ie t. D o e c r ie d a n d in d ic a te d r e p e a te d ly th a t s h e w a n te d h im to s to p . A f t e rthe s e xua l e nc ount e r , A y di n a nd D oe w a l ke d s tr a i ghtt o the s hi p a nd s p lit u p , w ith A y d in w a lk in g a h e a d o f h e ro n th e g a n g w a y . D o e w e n t to h e rr o o m . D oe ’ s f r i e nds f ound he rthe r e , di s tr a ught , a nd t ook he rt o the i nf i r m a r y . D oe re po rt ed t o t he nu rs e “ thatI w entou tw i th som e f ri ends, and t hatI w as j ustraped by one of

the c r e w - m e m be r s . ” T he s hi p’ s doc t ora dm i ni s t e r e d a r a pe ki t , a nd D oe f ile d a r e p o r t w ith th e s h ip ’s s e c u r ity p e r s o n n e l. A f t e rs pe a ki ng t o B e r m udi a n a uthor i t i e s , D oe f l e w hom e , a l ong w i th a f r i e nd a nd tha tf

r i e nd’ s pa r e nt s , on a f

l i ghtpa i d f

orby de f e nda ntC e l e br i ty C rui s e s . S he w as exam i ned agai n ata hospi t al i n C on nect i cut . A l l of the m edi ca l re cords w er e a dm i t t e d i nt o e vi de nc e . O ve rthe f ol l ow i ng m onths , s he a t t e nde d num e r ous co u n sel i n g sessi o n s fo r “ rap e su rv i v al ” an d o th er i ssu es. C el ebri ty C rui se s’ po l i cy proh i bi t ed cr ew fr at erni za t i on w i th p as se ng er s w h i l e o n th e sh i p , b u tp erm i t t ed i tw h en p assen g ers an d crew l eftth e sh i p atp o rt sof-c al l du ri ng the crui se . A ydi n t es t i fi ed that , w hi l e there w as no C el ebri ty pol i cy thatcr ew m em bers m ustas si stpass engers w hi l e off the shi p and off dut y, “ [i ] f theyAydin testified that he had theopportunity to have se xwith femalepasseng ers on many 8 occa sions, if he had so desire d. However, in his three year s of workingon the M/V Z ENI TH, Aydin had sex with passeng ers on only threeocca sions, including the incident in question. 16 a r e my g u e s t , I a l w a y s h a v e t o b e p o l i t e w i th th e m, b e c a u s e I a m ma k i n g my m on ey fr om tho se peop l e, and m y r at i ng s, t oo . . . [I ] f i ti s abo utthe pass enger, th e n I h e lp th e m , f

o rif I r e f u s e to h e lp th e m , th e n th e y g iv e m e tr o u b le .” Itw as A ydi n’ s und er st andi ng that , w hi l e on sho re , C el ebri ty C rui se s a l l ow ed h i m n o to n l y t o s o c i a l i z e w i th i t s p a s s e n g e r s , b u ta l s o t o h a v e s e x w i th th e m. 8 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T h is is a m a r itim e c a s e a b o u t a c r e w m e m b e r ’s s e x u a l b a tte r y o f a p a s s e n g e r . B e f o r e d is c u s s in g th e is s u e s o n a p p e a l, w e d is c u s s w h y th is c a s e w a s b r o u g h t in d is tr ic t c o u r t in M ia m i, F lo r id a a n d is w ith in th a t f e d e r a l c o u r t’s a d m ir a lty j ur i s di c t i on. A . Ju ri sd i ct i on al Is su es A s f o rw h y D o e c h o s e a F lo r id a v e n u e , D o e ’s c o n tr a c t w ith th e d e f e n d a n ts cont ai ned a forum se l ec t i on cl ause re qu i ri ng that“ al l di sput es and m att er s w ha t s oe ve ra r i s i ng unde r , i n c onne c t i on w i th ori nc i de ntt o thi s c ontr a c ts ha l l be l i t i gat ed, i f a tal l , i n and before a c ou rtl ocat ed i n M i am i , F l ori da, U . S . A . ” A l though D oe i s a C onne c t i c utr e s i de nt , a nd the s e xua l ba t t e r y oc c ur r e d on a r o u n d - tr ip c ru is e f

r o m N e w Y o r k to B e r m u d a , s h e h a d n o c h o ic e b u t to s u e in17

M i am i , F l ori da. A s f or j uri sdi ct i on , D oe’ s thi rd am ended com pl ai ntal l eged subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n b a s e d u p o n b o th a d m ir a lty ju r is d ic tio n a n d d iv e r s ity o f c itiz e n s h ip . B e c a u s e D o e is a r e s id e n t o f C o n n e c tic u t a n d n o d e f e n d a n t r e s id e s th e r e , d iv e r s ity j uri sdi ct i on cl ea rl y e xi st s. S ee 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(a) ; T ri gg s v. John C rum p T oyot a, I n c ., 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; G r e a t N o . R y . C o . v . G a lb r e a th C a ttle C o. , 27 1 U . S . 99 , 10 2-10 3, 46 S . C t . 43 9, 44 0 (19 26 ). In the past , thi s C ou rt appl i ed adm i ra l ty l aw i n a di vers i ty c as e w i tho utspec i fi ca l l y dec i di ng w hether a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t e d. S e e S hul t z v. F l or i da K e y s D i ve C e nt e r , I nc . , 224 F . 3d 1269, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e xpl a i ni ng “ [ t ] he que s t i on he r e , how e ve r , i s not w h e th e rs u b

je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n is s a tis f ie d , f o rth is c a s e is w ith in th e d iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n o f

th e f e d e r a l c o u r t, b u t w h e th e rto a p p ly f e d e r a l a d m ir a lty la w o rs ta te l aw t o a ca se w i thi n t he court ’ s j uri sdi ct i on ”) . F urtherm ore, al l part i es here c ont i nue t o a s s e r ttha tthe f e de r a l m a r i t i m e l a w gove r ns D oe ’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe d efen d an t s. T h u s, g i v en th atd i v ersi ty j u ri sd i ct i o n ex i st s an d th e p art i es’ agre em entthatadm i ra l ty l aw appl i es , w e hi st ori ca l l y have gon e no further. H ow ever , the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s r ec entdeci si on i n N orfol k S ou thern R ai l w ay C o . v . K irb y , 1 2 5 S . C t. 3 8 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , s u g g e s ts th a t in o r d e rf o rth is C o u r t to a p p ly a dm i r a l ty l a w , thi s C our tm us tha ve a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on. I d. a t392- 93 ( “ I nde e d,18

f orf e de r a l c om m on l a w t o a ppl y i n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , thi s s ui tm us ta l s o be s u s ta in a b le u n d e rth e a d m ir a lty ju r is d ic tio n . . . . [ T ]h e g r a n t o f a d m ir a lty ju r is d ic tio n a n d th e p o w e rto m a k e a d m ir a lty la w a r e m u tu a lly d e p e n d a n t . . . .” ) . A l though de f

e nda nt s ne ve rc ha l l e nge d the a l l e ge d a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on, w e ha ve a n i nde pe nde ntduty t o e ns ur e a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t s be f or e a ppl y i ng a dm i r a l ty l a w . S e e N or f ol k, 125 S . C t . a t392- 93; S e e a l s o S t e e l C o. v. C i t i z e ns f or a B ett erE nv i ronm ent , 52 3 U . S . 83 , 93 -102 , 11 8 S . C t . 10 03 , 10 11 -16 (19 98 ).

“ [A ] party s ee ki ng t o i nv ok e f eder al adm i ra l ty j uri sdi ct i on . . . ov era t ort c l a i m mu s ts a t i s f

y c o n d i t i o n s b o th o f

l o c a t i o n a n d o f

c o n n e c t i o n w i th ma r i t i me a c t i v i ty . ” J e r o me B. G ru b a r t , I n c . v . G r e a tLa k e s D r e d g e & D o c k Co . , 5 1 3 U . S. 5 2 7 , 5 3 4 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 1 0 4 3 , 1 0 4 8 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e r e f o r e , th is C o u r t m u s t d e te r m in e if tw o c o n d itio n s e x is t: ( 1 ) lo c a tio n a n d ( 2 ) c o n n e c tio n w ith m a r itim e a c tiv ity . W e a d d r e s s th e c o n n e c tio n w ith m a r itim e a c tiv ity f ir s t. As th e S u p r e m e C o u r ts t a t e d i n Gru b a r t , “ [ t ] h e c o n n e c t i o n t e s tr a i s e s two is s u e s ,” w h ic h a r e : A c our t , f

i r s t , m us ta s s e s s the ge ne r a l f e a tur e s of

the ty pe of

i nc i de nt i nvol ve d t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe i nc i de ntha s a pot e nt i a l l y di s rupt i ve i m pa c ton m a r i t i m e c om m e r c e . S e c ond, a c our tm us tde t e r m i ne w he the rthe ge ne r a l c ha r a c t e rof the a c t i vi ty gi vi ng r i s e t o the i nc i de nt show s a subst ant i al re l at i on shi p t o tra di t i on al m ar i t i m e a ct i vi ty. ” Id. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on s om i t t ed).19

W e read i l y d i sp en se w i th th e fi rsti ssu e o f th e co n n ect i o n t est . A s th e cru i se l i ne i ndus tr y i s m a r i t i m e c om m e r c e , a c r e w m e m be r ’ s s e xua l a s s a ul ton a pass enger obv i ou sl y “ has a po t ent i al l y di srup t i ve i m pacton m ar i t i m e c om m er ce . ” Iti s e as y t o i m agi ne thati f r ape or other f orm s of s exual bat t ery bec am e a concern o f p a s s e n g e r s , c ru is e - s h ip b u s in e s s w o u ld n e c e s s a r ily s u f f e r . A s f o rth e s e c o n d is s u e o f

th e c o n n e c tio n te s t, th e c h a r a c te ro f th e a c tiv ity he r e i s the i nt e r a c t i on be tw e e n c r e w m e m be r s a nd pa s s e nge r s dur i ng a n ongoi ng c ru i s e , w h i c h c l e a r l y b e a r s a “ s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o tr a d i t i o n a l ma r i t i me a c tiv ity .” T h u s , f

o re x a m p le , in th is c a s e th e e r r a n t c r e w m e m b e rw a s a s s ig n e d to se rve a s the vi ct i m ’ s w ai t erea ch ni gh tw hi l e on b oard the shi p, and w as perm i t t ed t o soci al i ze w i th p as se ng er s on sho re . In fa ct , i tw as cust om ary f or cr ew m em bers a nd pa s s e nge r s t o s oc i a l i z e a tthe O a s i s ba rdur i ng thi s pa r t i c ul a rc rui s e . T he ni ght o f th e s ex u al b attery , th e c re w m em b er (a t d in n er o n th e s h ip ) d irec ted th e v icti m ’s gr oup t o the O a s i s , w a s the r e w he n the vi c t i m a r r i ve d, a nd l a t e rof f e r e d t o pr ovi de h e ra s s is ta n c e . T h e c r e w m e m b e ru ltim a te ly a c c o m p a n ie d D o e b a c k to th e s h ip . D o e th e n r e p o r te d h e re n c o u n te rw ith th e c r e w m e m b e rto th e s h ip ’s s e c u r ity p erso n n el an d w as ex am i n ed b y m ed i cal st aff ab o ard th e cru i se sh i p . A cco rd i n g l y, w e c onc l ude tha tthe i nt e r a c t i on be tw e e n D oe a nd the c r e w m e m be rs a t i s f i e s the c onne c t i on- w i th- m a r i t i m e - a c t i vi ty pr ong.20

W e a l s o m us tc ons i de rthe l oc a t i on of the t or t . A dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on o b v i o u s l y e x i s t s wh e r e a c r e w m e m b e rs e x u a l l y b a t t e r s a p a s s e n g e rwh i l e th e two a r e onboa r d the s hi p. S e e K e r m a r e c v. C om pa gni e G e ne r a l e T r a ns a t l a nt i que , 358 U .S . 6 2 5 , 6 2 8 , 7 9 S . C t. 4 0 6 , 4 0 8 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ( “K e r m a r e c w a s in ju r e d a b o a r d a s h ip up on navi gabl e w at er s. Itw as there thatthe cond uctof w hi ch he com pl ai ned occurre d. T he l egal ri gh t s a nd l i abi l i t i es ar i si ng fr om thatcond uctw er e there fore w i thi n the f

ul l r e a c h of

the a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on a nd m e a s ur a bl e by the s t a nda r ds o f m a r itim e la w .” ) ( c o lle c tin g c a s e s ) . A l tho ug h som e t em pt at i on exi st s t o d ra w a bri gh tl i ne betw ee n a cr ew m e m be ra s s a ul tof

a pa s s e nge rtha toc c ur s on the s hi p ve r s us i n a por t - of - c a l l , “ the s i tua t i on pr e s e nt e d he r e ha s a m or e ge nui ne l y s a l ty f l a vortha n tha t . ” K os s i c k v. U ni t e d F rui tC o. , 365 U . S . 731, 742, 81 S . C t . 886, 894 ( 1961) . F ur the r m or e , the S upr e m e C our tr e c e nt l y ha s t a ke n a n e xpa ns i ve vi e w of a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on a nd s ta te d th a t in m o d e r n m a r itim e c o m m e r c e “th e s h o r e is n o w a n a r tif ic ia l p la c e to d r a w a lin e .” N o r f

o lk , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 3 8 8 . A lth o u g h th is c a s e m a y r e p r e s e n t th e o u te rb o u n d a r ie s o f a d m ir a lty j ur i s di c t i on ove rt or t s , w e c onc l ude tha ta dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on e xt e nds t o the l oc a t i on of

the s e xua l ba t t e r y unde rthe pe c ul i a rc i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e f

or se vera l re as on s. F i rs t , the st op i n B er m ud a w as a s chedul ed po rt -of- ca l l , and w as21

an i nt egra l partof the on -goi ng crui se or m ar i t i m e a ct i vi ty i n t hi s c as e. P ort s- ofc a l l notonl y a dd t o the e nj oy m e ntof a c rui s e butf

or m a n e s s e nt i a l f

unc t i on of

the c ru is e e x p e r ie n c e . I n f

a c t, o n th is p a r tic u la rc ru is e , f iv e o f th e s e v e n n ig h ts w e r e to be s pe nti n B e r m udi a n por t s . P l a i nl y , i ndi vi dua l s c hoos e c rui s e s hi p va c a t i ons beca use they w antt o v i si tun fa m i l i arpl ac es as ho re . C rui se s t o A l as ka, the N ew E ngl a nd S t a t e s , B e r m uda orthe C a r r i be a n of f e rf unda m e nt a l l y di f

f e r e nt e xpe r i e nc e s , notge ne r a l l y be c a us e of a ny m a t e r i a l di f

f e r e nc e be tw e e n s hi ps , but oft en because of w here the shi ps el ec tt o st op . S ee Is ham v. P ac i fi c F arE as tL i ne, I n c ., 4 7 6 F .2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 3 ) ( “W h e r e a p a s s e n g e ro rc ru is e v e s s e l p u ts i nt o num e r ous por t s i n the c our s e of a c rui s e , the s e s t opove r s a r e the s i ne qua non of the c rui s e . ” ) . W he n a pa s s e nge rs e l e c t s a pa r t i c ul a rc rui s e , por t s - of - c a l l or st op ov er s provi de tho se pass engers w i th t he “ crui se experi ence ” f or w hi ch they a re p a y in g . S im p ly p u t, th e d e s tin a tio n s o rp o r ts - o f - c a ll a r e f

r e q u e n tly th e m a in a t tr a c t i on. J us ta s por t s - of

- c a l l s e r ve a s a n i nt e gr a l pa r tof the m a r i t i m e c rui s e , nothi ng a boutthe pa r t i c ul a rf

a c t s of thi s c a s e t a ke s the c r e w m e m be rs e xua l ba t t e r y out s i de the sc op e of thi s C ou rt ’ s a dm i ra l ty j uri sdi ct i on . T he se xu al bat t ery occ urre d v ery cl ose t o t he do cked shi p, and n ei ther the vi ct i m pass enger nor t he cr ew m em ber l ef t th e p o r t- o f

- c a ll o rtr a v e le d a n y r e a l d is ta n c e f r o m th e s h ip . S e e g e n e r a lly , D u lu th22

S upe r i orE xc ur s i ons , I nc . v. M a ke l a , 623 F . 2d 1251, 1253 n. 5 ( 8th C i r . 1980) ( “ A l though i tm i ghtbe a r gue d tha tM a ke l a ’ s i nj ur y i s r e m ot e f r om the w r ongf

ul a c t , the a c c i de ntoc c ur r e d s om e s i x m i nut e s a f t e rthe S . S . F l a m i ngo doc ke d, on a stre etthatadj oi ns the do ck. ”) . A s dem on stra t ed by the fa ct s of thi s c as e, w hen doc ke d a tthe por t - of

- c a l l , the c rui s e s hi p a l l ow e d pa s s e nge r s t o c om e a nd go f r om the shi p as they e l ec t ed; consequent l y, there w as l i t t l e pra ct i ca l di ff er ence betw ee n th e p o r t- o f

- c a ll a n d o th e rp a r ts o f

th e s h ip – th e y w e r e , a t a ll tim e s , e q u a lly accessi b l e t o p assen g ers. In d eed , th e sh i p l i t eral l y casta l o n g sh ad o w ; i tw as cl o se by and v i si bl e f

rom the O as i s. Iti s thu s notsurpri si ng thatpass engers and crew m e m be r s r out i ne l y w e ntba c k a nd f or th be tw e e n the O a s i s a nd the s hi p, a nd ro u t i n el y so ci al i zed t o g eth er atth e O asi s. M oreover, i n m any w ay s thi s par t i cul ari nci dentef fe ct i vel y began and end ed aboard the crui se shi p. T he neces sa ry prec ursors for thi s s exual bat t ery occ urre d w hi l e the s hi p w a s on na vi ga bl e w a t e r s ; tha ti s , i tw oul d notha ve oc c ur r e d i f the sh ip h ad n o t ass ig n ed A yd in to b e D o e’s w aiter o r if A yd in h ad n o t d irec ted D o e’s g r o u p to a tte n d th is p a r tic u la rb a rw ith in e y e s h o t o f th e s h ip o n th a t f

a te f u l n ig h t. A nd the i nci dentdi d n otend u nt i l A ydi n and D oe re turned t o t he shi p and part ed w ays. M o r e im p o r ta n tly , th e p u rp o s e b e h in d th e e x e r c is e o f th is C o u r t’s a d m ir a ltyTh e reis n oth inginh e rently loc a l a bo ut t hec ruiselin e -p a sseng e r re latio ns hip in t his c a se 9 that milit ates ag ainst the application of the uniform law of admiralty . In fac t, no party has articulated any

Bermudian intere sts at stake in deter mining the c ivil li ability

between Doe a

nd the def endants in this case . 23 ju r is d ic tio n is to p r o v id e f o rth e u n if

o r m a p p lic a tio n o f

g e n e r a l m a r itim e la w . P l ai nl y, the st andard of car e thatgo verns w hen a crui se l i ne’ s c re w m em ber a s s a u lts a p a s s e n g e rs h o u ld b e u n if o r m a n d n o t v a r y f

r o m p o r t to p o r t o n a s in g le c rui s e . J a ne D oe w a s no l e s s a c rui s e pa s s e nge rthe m om e nts he s t e ppe d of f the s h ip a t th e p o r t- o f

- c a ll th a n s h e w a s th e m o m e n t b e f o r e s h e s te p p e d o f

f th e s h ip . W e see n o reaso n th atcru i se l i n es’ l i ab i l i ty t o th ei r p assen g ers w h i l e ata reg u l arl ys c h e d u le d p o r t- o f

- c a ll a n d in a c r e w m e m b e r ’s c o m p a n y s h o u ld v a r y f r o m p o r t to po rt , es peci al l y gi ven t he po t ent i al l y di srup t i ve i m pacton m ar i t i m e c om m er ce . 9 I nde e d, a rul i ng tha ta dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on di d note xt e nd l i t e r a l l y be y ond the gang pl ank i n t hi s c as e w ou l d u psetthe very un i form i ty thatthe S up re m e C ou rthas de t e r m i ne d i s s o i m por t a ntf orm a r i t i m e a c t i vi ty . S e e N or f ol k, 125 S . C t . a t388; G ruba r t , 513 U . S . a t532, 115 S . C t . a t1047- 48. F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthi s C our tha s a dm i r a l ty j ur i s di c t i on o v e rth e c a s e . C o n s e q u e n tly , w e a p p ly f e d e r a l a d m ir a lty la w , th e la w b o th re qu es t ed and argued b y the part i es , t o t he event s thatoccurre d b etw ee n cre w m em ber A ydi n and pass enger D oe.24

B . R u l e 50( b ) M ot i on A s de t a i l e d a bove , a tthe c l os e of pl a i nt i f f’ s e vi de nc e , de f

e nda nt s m ove d f

or ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w p u r s u a n t to R u le 5 0 ( a ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C iv il P roce du re . A tthe cl ose of a l l the evi dence, defe nd ant s r enew ed ce rt ai n R ul e 50(a) m ot i ons . A f

t e rthe j ur y ’ s ve r di c t , de f e nda nt s f i l e d pos t - j udgm e ntm ot i ons pur s ua nt t o R ul e 50(b). N on e of the defendant s’ R ul e 50(a) or 50 (b) m ot i on s, ho w ever , ra i se d t he evi dent i ary i ss ue of w hether D oe had p roved t hatany one defendantw as b o th a co m m o n carri er an d A yd i n ’ s em p l o yer. N o n eth el ess, aft er th e d efen d an t s’ R ul e 50(b) m ot i on s w er e f i l ed, the di stri ctcourtsua s po nt e r ai se d t hi s e vi dent i ary is s u e . A c c o r d in g to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, [i ] n revi ew i ng the po st -ver di ctm ot i on s, the C ou rtbeca m e c on ce rned sua s po nt e w i th w hether P l ai nt i ff had sho w n t he D ef

endant s w er e c om m on c a r r i e r s w ho e m pl oy e d A y di n, the r e by p ro pe r l y i m pos i ng l i ab i l i t y f

orA y di n’ s t or t i ous a c tof s e xua l ba t t e r y , a s f

ound by the j ury. A l tho ug h n ei ther party a tany t i m e r ai se d t hi s i ss ue, the C ou rt u n d e rF e d .R .C iv . P . 5 0 ( b ) s h a ll c o n s id e rit. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y c onc l ude d tha t“ the r e i s no D e f e n d a n t in th is c a s e w h o is b o th a c o m m o n c a r r ie ra n d A y d in ’s e m p lo y e rf o rth is C o u r t to im p o s e s tr ic t lia b ility f o rth e to r t th e ju r y f

o u n d w a s c o m m itte d b y A y d in a g a in s t D o e .” O n th is s o le e v id e n tia r y g r o u n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d a ll d e f e n d a n ts ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w u n d e rR u le 5 0 ( b ) . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ngs on m ot i ons unde rR ul e 50 ofRul e50 (b ) p ro vid e s: 10 (b) RenewingMotion for Judgment After Trial; Alterna

tive Motion for New Tria l. I f, fo r a

ny re a so n, thec ourt

do e s n ot gra

nt a motion fo r j udgme nt a s a matter of la

w made a t the close of all the evidence , the cour t is considered to have submitt ed the a ction to the jury subject to the cour

t's later de cidingthe leg al questions raised by

the motion. The movant may renew its request for

judgment as a matter of law

by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment -- a nd may alternatively

reque st a new trial or join a motion for a ne w trial under R u l e5 9 . Inr

u l i n go na r e n e w e d m o t i o n , th ec o urtm ay: 25 th e F ed eral R u l es o f C i v i l P ro ced u re, ex am i n i n g th e tri al ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . T hos t e s on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 331 F . 3d 1294, 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n m a k in g its R u le 5 0 ( b ) ru lin g s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d b e c a u s e it l a c ke d a uthor i ty t o e nt e rj udgm e ntunde rR ul e 50( b) f orthe de f

e nda nt s on a gr ound n o t r a is e d p r io rto th e s u b m is s io n o f th e c a s e to th e ju r y . R u le 5 0 ( b ) e x p r e s s ly p ro v i d es th at , aft er a j u ry v erd i ct , a p arty “ m ay ren ew i t s req u estfo r j u d g m en tas a m a t t e rof l a w . . . . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . F e d. R . C i v. P . 50( b) . A R ul e 50( b) m ot i on is a r e n e w a l o f

a R u le 5 0 ( a ) m o tio n . S e e M id d le b r o o k s v . H illc r e s t F o o d s , I n c ., 25 6 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). T hi s C ou rtre peat edl y has m ade c l ea r that a ny r e ne w a l of

a m ot i on f

orj udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w unde rR ul e 50( b) m us tbe ba s e d upon the s a m e gr ounds a s the or i gi na l r e que s tf orj udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w m a de unde rR ul e 50( a ) a tthe c l os e of the e vi de nc e a nd pr i ort o the c a s e be i ng s ubm i t t e d t o the j ur y . S e e e . g. , S ha nnon v. B e l l S outh T e l e c om m s . , I nc . , 292 F . 3d 71 2, 71 7 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ); M i dd l ebrook s, 25 6 F . 3d at12 45 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). 10(1) if a verdic t was re turned: (A) allow the judgment to stand, (B ) order a new trial, or (C) direc t entry

of judgment as a matter of law ; or (2) if no verdict wa s returne d; (A) order a

new trial, or (B ) direc t entry

of judgment as a matter of law . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 50(b). 26 A s th i s C o u rtst at ed i n M i d d l eb ro o k s, a R u l e 5 0 (a) m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m a t t e rof l a w “ c a n be r e ne w e d a f t e rtr i a l unde rR ul e 50( b) , buta pa r ty c a nnot as se rtgrou nd s i n the re new ed m ot i on thati tdi d n otra i se i n t he ea rl i erm ot i on . ” M i dd l ebrook s, 25 6 F . 3d at12 45 (c i t at i on om i t t ed). T hi s rul e e nsures “ that oppos i ng c ouns e l w i l l notbe ‘ a m bus he d’ or‘ s a ndba gge d’ r e ga r di ng the s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t a p o in t in th e tr ia l p r o c e e d in g s w h e n it is to o la te to a d d r e s s p o s s ib le in s u f f ic ie n c ie s . T h e p u rp o s e o f R u le 5 0 ( b ) . . . [ is ] ‘to a v o id m a k in g a tr a p ’ o u t o f a m o tio n f

o rJN O V .” C r a w f

o r d v . A n d r e w S y s ., I n c ., 39 F . 3d 11 51 , 11 53 -54 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( qu ot i ng S i m s’ C ra ne S er v. v. Idea l S t ee l P r o d ., I n c ., 8 0 0 F .2 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . G i ven t he pu rpose a nd re new al nature of a R ul e 50(b) m ot i on , thi s C ou rt a l s o ha s i ns truc t e d tha ta di s tr i c tc our tdoe s notha ve the a uthor i ty unde rR ul e 50( b) t o rul e s ua s pont e on i s s ue s notr a i s e d by the pa r t i e s . C r a w f or d, 39 F . 3d a t1154 (“ Ju stas w e w o u l d n o tp erm i td efen d an t s w h o h ad m ad e n o p rev i o u s m o t i o n t o ask the courtt o rul e on t he l egal suff i ci ency of the evi dence once a ver di cthad b ee nTh is r uleis c on sis te nt w iththo seof our s ist e r c irc uit s. Se eAm e ri c an a nd F ore ign Ins . 11 Co. v. Bolt, 106 F.3d 155, 160 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (“Theopinion below expli citly states that the Mag istrate found theGarden City decision himself and sua sponte relied on it as a

basis for grantingJNOV. This ac tion is i n contravention of the dictates of F ed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and for that rea son must be reve rsed.” ); Murphy v. City of L ongBe ach, 914 F .2d 183, 185-86 (9th Cir. 1990) (c oncludingthat “[f]or the same re asons a pa rty may not seek a

JNOV on grounds not alleg ed in their motion for dire cted verdict, a district c ourt may not enter a

JNOV on grounds not asser ted in a par

ty ’s motion for direc ted verdict”); Kutne r B uick, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., 868 F.2d 614, 617 ( 3rd Cir. 1989) (rever sing district c ourt' s decision to grant JNOV where that decision wa s based on grounds other tha n those adva

nced in the pa

rty' s motion); Moz ingo v. Correc t Mfg . Corp., 752 F.2d 168, 171- 72 (5th Cir. 1985) (reversinga district cour t's de cision grant i n g JNO V o na gr o un d n o tadv an ce d

b y th e p arty's m o t i o nas anab u s e o f th e c o urt 's discretion and a

violation of the prec epts of Rule 50(b) ). As an e x ample of howRule 50(b) should be applied, the A dvisory Commi ttee’s Note s on Rule 50(b) re ferencethe Third Circuit’s Kutner B uick dec ision. S ee F ed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) advisory committee’s note. 27 re turned agai nstthem , w e c anno tperm i tthe di stri ctcourtt o so rul e s ua spon t e. ”) . 11 I n thi s c a s e , a f

t e rthe j ur y r e nde r e d i t s ve r di c t , the di s tr i c tc our ts ua s pont e be c a m e c onc e r ne d w i th a n e vi de nt i a r y i s s ue – w he the ra ny one de f e nda nt w a s both a c om m on c a r r i e ra nd A y di n’ s e m pl oy e r– notr a i s e d by the pa r t i e s pr i or to s u b m is s io n o f

th e c a s e to th e ju r y . W e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id r e que s ta nd a l l ow f

ur the r , pos t -

j udgm e ntbr i e f

i ng on the i s s ue . N one the l e s s , the di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y gr a nt e d j udgm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w ba s e d upon a l a c k of e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g a f

a c tu a l is s u e n e v e rr a is e d b y a n y d e f e n d a n t b e f

o r e th e tr ia l, a nd ne ve ra ddr e s s e d by a ny one i n a ny w a y be f or e s ubm i s s i on of

the c a s e t o the ju r y . T h is is p r e c is e ly th e ty p e o f p o s t- v e r d ic t “tr a p ” th a t R u le 5 0 ( b ) is d e s ig n e d to a voi d. A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d a u th o r ity to g r a n t a28

R ul e 50( b) j udgm e nton a gr ound notr a i s e d by the pa r t i e s pr i ort o the s ubm i s s i on of the c a s e t o the j ur y . W e the r e f or e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s R ul e 50( b) ju d g m en t as a m atter o f law in fa v o r o f th e d ef en d an ts an d re in state th e ju ry ’s verdi cti n favor of t he pl ai nt i ff D oe. W hi l e thi s R ul e 50( b) i s s ue i s e a s i l y r e s ol ve d by ourpr e c e de nt , the ne xt i ss ue i s not . T he defendant s’ cr oss- appeal ra i se s the i m po rt anti ss ue of w hether a c ru is e lin e , a s a c o m m o n c a r r ie r , is s tr ic tly lia b le f o rc r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts o n its p a s s e n g e r s d u r in g tr a n s it. A c c o r d in g ly , w e m u s t n a v ig a te th r o u g h c o n s id e r a b le p r e c e d e n t a b o u t th e d u ty o f c o m m o n c a r r ie r s to p r o te c t a n d s a f e ly tr a n s p o r t th e ir p assen g ers an d co m m o n carri ers’ co rresp o n d i n g l i ab i l i ty fo r crew m em b er assau l t s. C . L i ab i l i ty for C re w M em b er A ss au l ts 1. S u p re m e C ou rt A s t o t he i ss ue of com m on ca rr i er s’ spec i al du ty t o t hei r pas se ng er s, there a r e o n l y th r e e Su p r e me Co u r td e c i s i o n s th a tb e a ro n th e i s s u e . N e w J e r s e y St e a mBo a tCo . v . Br o c k e t t , 1 2 1 U . S. 6 3 7 , 7 S. Ct . 1 0 3 9 ( 1 8 8 7 ) ; N e w O r l e a n s & N . E. R. C o . v . J o p e s , 1 4 2 U .S . 1 8 , 1 2 S . C t. 1 0 9 ( 1 8 9 1 ) ; K e r m a r e c v . C o m p a g n ie G e n e r a le Tr a n s a t l a n t i q u e , 3 5 8 U . S. 6 2 5 , 7 9 S. Ct . 4 0 6 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Th e p a r t i e s c i t e th e s e s a me ca se s butdi sa gree abou tthei r i m po rt . W e thu s begi n b y a nal yz i ng these three d e c is io n s .29

In 18 87 , the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtfi rs taddres se d cre w m em ber as sa ul t s a gai nstshi p p as se ng er s. In B rockett , the pass enger w as i m prop er l y “ abaf t th e s h a f t,” a n a r e a o f

th e s h ip f

o rb id d e n to “d e c k p a s s e n g e r s .” 1 2 1 U .S . a t 1 0 4 0 , 7 S . C t . at64 4. A cr ew m em ber vi ol ent l y r em ov ed the pass enger fr om the forbi dd en a r e a , d i s l o c a t e d h i s s h o u l d e r , a n d u s e d u n n e c e s s a r y a n d e x c e s s i v e f o r c e . 1 2 1 U . S. at10 42 , 75 S . C t . at64 7. T he S up re m e C ou rtup hel d t he j ury’ s ver di ct c o m p e n s a tin g th e p a s s e n g e rf o rh is in ju r ie s . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t, despi t e the pass enger’ s pre se nce i n a forbi dd en ar ea , i f the pass enger’ s i nj uri es

“ w er e di re ct l y c ause d b y the i m prop ercond uctof the ca rr i er ’ s s er vant s, ei ther w hi l e a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of the i rge ne r a l e m pl oy m e nt , orw he n i n the di sc harge of s peci al du t i es i m po se d u po n t hem , [the pass enger] i s notprec l ud ed f r om c l a i m i ng the be ne f

i tof the c ontr a c tf

ors a f e tr a ns por t a t i on. ” B r oc ke t t , 121 U . S . a t645, 7 S . C t . a t1041. R a the r , the pa s s e nge rw a s e nt i t l e d “ t o pr ot e c t i on a g a in s t th e m is c o n d u c t o rn e g lig e n c e o f th e c a r r ie r ’s s e r v a n ts .” I d . I n B r oc ke t t , the S upr e m e C our tf ur the rs t a t e d tha tthe “ m i s c onduc tor n eg l i g en ce” o f th e carrier’ s serv an t s “ w h i l e tran sact i n g th e co m p an y’ s b u si n ess, a nd w he n a c t i ng w i thi n the ge ne r a l s c ope of the i re m pl oy m e nt , i s of ne c e s s i ty t o be i m put e d t o the c orpor a t i on. ” I d. “ [ I ] tm a ke s no di f f e r e nc e tha tthe m a s t e rdi d not a uthor i z e ore ve n know of the s e r va nt ’ s a c torne gl e c t , ore ve n i f he di s a ppr ove d orIn this case, the pa rties do not dispute that a cr uise ship is considered a

common car

rier 12 un de r f e de ral ma ri tim elaw. Se eShu ltz v . F lorida Key s D iveCe nter, 22 4 F .3 d 1 26 9, 12 73 (1 1th Cir. 2000) (desc ribingcruise ships as c ommon carriers); Kor nbergv. Carnival Cruise L ines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1334 ( 11th Cir. 1984) (same) . Rather, they dispute the standard of ca re ow ed by sh ip d e fend ants , a s c omm on c arrie rs , to the ir

pa sseng e rs . 30 fo rb ad e it, h e is e q u ally li ab le if th e a ct b e d o n e in th e c o u rs e o f h is se rv an t’ s e m p lo y m e n t.” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h is p r in c ip le , a c c o r d in g to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in B r o c k e tt, is “p e c u lia r ly a ppl i c a bl e a s be tw e e n c a r r i e r s a nd pa s s e nge r s ; f or. . . a c om m on c a r r i e ri s bound, as fa r a s pra ct i cabl e, t o p rot ec ti t s pas se ng er s, w hi l e bei ng conv ey ed, fr om vi ol ence com m i t t ed by stra ng er s a nd co-pas se ng er s, and u nd er t akes absol ut el y t o p rot ec t the m a ga i ns tthe m i s c onduc tof i t s ow n s e r va nt s e nga ge d i n e xe c ut i ng the c o n tr a c t.” I d . a t 6 4 5 - 4 6 , 7 S . C t. a t 1 0 4 1 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . I n r e a c h in g th e s e c o n c lu s io n s in a s h ip c a s e , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in B r o c k e tt r e lie d e x c lu s iv e ly u p o n p r io rd e c is io n s in v o lv in g tr a in s , a n d in e f f e c t, tr e a te d a s h ip a s a c om m on c a r r i e rs i m i l a rt o a tr a i n. A s s how n he r e a nd l a t e ri n thi s opi ni on, 12 the fe dera l m ar i t i m e l aw es se nt i al l y r el i es up on , and i ncorpo ra t es , the fe dera l c om m on l a w gove r ni ng a c om m on c a r r i e r ’ s l i a bi l i ty a s i t s l i a bi l i ty s t a nda r d f or crew m em b er assau l t s o n p assen g ers. G i ven B rockett ’ s r ef

er ence t o a du ty of absol ut e prot ec t i on agai nstcr ew m e m be rm i s c onduc t , s om e c our t s s ubs e que nt l y r e a d B r oc ke t ta s nota l l ow i ng a31

shi p-em pl oyert o d ef

end an ass aul tcl ai m on the basi s thatthe cr ew m em ber w as a c tin g o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. S e e , e .g . P a c if ic S .S . C o . v . S u tto n , 7 F . 2d 579, 580 ( 9th C i r . 1925) ( c i t i ng B r oc ke t tf orpr opos i t i on tha t“ s c ope of e m pl oy m e nt ” i s notr e qui r e d) ; F or r e s t e rv. S outhe r n P a c . C o. , 134 P . 753, 774- 75 ( N e v . 1 9 1 3 ) ( s a m e ) . I n f a c t, B r o c k e tt is a m b ig u o u s o n th is is s u e b e c a u s e it c ont a i ns c onf

l i c t i ng f or m ul a t i ons a nd l e a ve s ope n t o i nt e rpr e t a t i on w he the rthe w r ongf ul a c ta ti s s ue ne c e s s a r i l y m us tbe w i thi n the “ s c ope of the e m pl oy m e nt , ” or m e r e ly in th e “c o u r s e o f e m p lo y m e n t.” In any e vent , a f

ew ye ar s l at erthe S up re m e C ou rtappl i ed and cl ar i fi ed B r oc ke t ti n a nothe rc om m on c a r r i e rc a s e , N e w O r l e a ns & N . E . R . C o. v. J ope s , 142 U .S . 1 8 , 1 2 S . C t. 1 0 9 ( 1 8 9 1 ) . J o p e s in v o lv e d a c o n d u c to r ’s s h o o tin g o f a tr a in pass enger. T he S up re m e C ou rti n Jop es appears t o h ave r em ov ed any s cope-ofe m p lo y m e n t r e q u ir e m e n t a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t a c o m m o n c a r r ie ris a b s o lu te ly lia b le f orunl a w f

ul a s s a ul t s by i t s e m pl oy e e s a ga i ns ti t s pa s s e nge r s . I n J ope s , the S up re m e C ou rtqu ot ed B rockett ’ s rul e that“ a c om m on ca rr i erun dert akes a b s o l u t e l y t o p r o t e c ti t s p a s s e n g e r s a g a i n s tth e m i s c o n d u c to rn e g l i g e n c e o f i t s o wn s e r v a n ts , e m p lo y e d in e x e c u tin g th e c o n tr a c t o f tr a n s p o r ta tio n , a n d a c tin g w ith in the ge ne r a l s c ope of

the i re m pl oy m e nt . ” 142 U . S . a t25, 12 S . C t . a t111 ( quot i ng B r oc ke t t , 122 U . S . a t637, 7 S . C t . A t1039) . B uta f t e rdi s c us s i ng B r oc ke t t , the32

S upr e m e C our ti n J ope s not e d tha t“ c our t s hol d tha tthe l i a bi l i ty of a c om m on c a r r i e rt o hi s pa s s e nge r s f orthe a s s a ul t s of

hi s e m pl oy e e s i s of

a m os ts tr i nge nt c h a r a c te r , f

a rg r e a te rth a n th a t o f

o r d in a r y e m p lo y e r s f

o rth e a c tio n s o f

th e ir e mp l o y e s [ s i c ] . ” J o p e s , 1 4 2 U . S. a t2 6 , 1 2 S. Ct . a t1 1 2 . I n J o p e s , th e Su p r e me C our tthe n c i t e d a l e ga l tr e a t i s e f orthe pr opos i t i on tha ta c om m on c a r r i e ri s “ bound a bs ol ut e l y t o s e e t o i ttha tno unl a w f ul a s s a ul tori nj ur y i s i nf l i c t e d upon [ p a s s e n g e r s ] b y th e iro w n s e r v a n ts .” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . M or e i m por t a nt l y , i n J ope s , the S upr e m e C our tf ur the re xpl a i ne d tha tthe d ef en se m o st o ften ra ised b y a n em p lo ye r in a c as e in v o lv in g an em p lo ye e’s as sa ul tup on a pas se ng erw as thatthe em pl oyee ’ s a ct“ w as a w ant on and w i l l ful ac t on hi s pa r t , out s i de the s c ope of hi s e m pl oy m e nt , a nd the r e f or e s om e thi ng f

or w h ic h h is e m p lo y e rw a s n o t r e s p o n s ib le .” I d ., 1 4 2 U .S . a t 2 7 , 1 2 S . C t. a t 1 1 2 . T he S up re m e C ou rtac kn ow l edged t hat“ i f the ac tw as of thatchar ac t er , the general ru le is th a t th e e m p lo y e e a lo n e , a n d n o t th e e m p lo y e r , is r e s p o n s ib le .” I d . H ow ever , the S up re m e C ou rti n Jop es cont i nu ed, “ [b] utow i ng t o t he pecul i ar ci rc um st ance s w hi ch surr ou nd the ca rryi ng of pass engers , as st at ed, a m ore s tr in g e n t ru le o f

lia b ility h a s b e e n c a s t u p o n th e e m p lo y e r ; a n d h e h a s b e e n h e ld l i a bl e a l though the a s s a ul tw a s w a nt on a nd w i l l f ul , a nd out s i de the s c ope of theTh is s tric t li a bil ity of a c omm on c arrie r f or e mpl oye ea ssa

ult s o n p a sseng e rs is 13 premised historically

in part upon the e ntrustment of passeng ers’ personal safety to the common car rier. Cra ker v. Chicag o & N orthwester n Ry . Co., 36 W is. 657, 671 (1875) (“passeng ers of nece ssity commit to [ the offic ers of a common ca

rrier] their saf

ety and comf

ort in transitu”); Goodard v. Gra

nd Trunk Ry . of Canada , 57 Me. 202, 213-14 ( 1869) (notingof common ca rrier s that “[t] o their ca

re a nd fidelity

areintrusted the lives and limbs and comfor t and convenienceof the whole tra

velingpublic, and it is certainly as important that these servants should be trustworthy

as it is that they

be compe tent” and f

urther that “[t] he ca

rrier ’s obliga

tion is t o car

ry his passeng ers sa fely

and properly , and to treat him respectf ully , and if heintrusts the perf ormanc e of this duty

to his servants, the law holds him responsible f or the manner in which they execute the trust.”) . See discussion on this point i n Phili p H. B udwick, “Strict L iability or Ne g ligence: What 14 Stand ard of CareAppli e s When Cre wm e mbers As sa ult Pa sseng e rs on

Cr uis eShips ? ”19 Tu l. Mar. L .J. 3 53 , 3 58 (1 99 5) (“ B e c a us etheB ro c kett Co ur

t c ite d s e ve ral ra ilroa d c a se s f or a uth ority and the Jopes Court cited Brockett, it is reasona ble to sug g est that the rule in Jopes also applies 33 em pl oym ent . ” I d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed). 13 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in J o p e s f u r th e rs ta te d th a t th is lia b ility ru le is e x tr e m e ly br oa d a nd e nc om pa s s e s unl a w f ul a c t s pl a i nl y notdone “ i n f ur the r a nc e of

the c a r r ie r ’s b u s in e s s ” a s f

o llo w s : R ec entca se s s t at e thi s l i abi l i ty i n t he broadestand strong es tl angu age; a nd, w i thoutgoi ng be y ond the a c tua l de c i s i ons , i tm a y be s a i d tha tthe c a r r i e ri s l i a bl e f

ore ve r y c onc e i va bl e w r ongf ul a c tdone t o a pass enger by i t s tra i n h ands and o ther e m pl oyee s w hi l e they a re e nga ge d i n tr a ns por t i ng hi m , no m a t t e rhow w i l l f ul a nd m a l i c i ous the a c t m a y b e , o rh o w p la in ly it m a y b e a p p a r e n t f r o m its n a tu r e th a t it c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d o n e in f u r th e r a n c e o f

th e c a r r ie r ’s b u s in e s s . Id. , 14 2 U . S . at26 , 12 S . C t . at11 2 (ci t at i on and q uo t at i on m ar ks om i t t ed). In bo th B rockettand Jop es , the S up re m e C ou rtspok e of c om m on ca rr i er l i a bi l i ty i n ge ne r a l , a nd w a s unc onc e r ne d w i th w he the rthe s pe c i f i c m ode of tr a ns por tw a s a s hi p ora tr a i n. A s not e d e a r l i e r , B r oc ke t t , a s hi p c a s e , c i t e d a nd 14to passeng er ships bec ause both a re c onsidered c ommon carriers.”) . The SupremeCourt continues to shape its federal maritime law from its decisions about 15 common car

riag e involving trains. See Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Kirby , 125 S. Ct . 385, 389 (2004) ( derivingrule in maritime ca se from railroad c ommon carrier c ase) (citingGre at Northe rn R. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U.S. 508, 34 S. C t. 380 (1914)). Af te r Jop e s, nume rous c ourt s in bo th s hip c a se s a

nd tra in c a se s h avec on c lud e d th at a 16 common car

rier is strictly

liable for a ssaults by

its employees ag ainst passeng ers. See , e.g Matthews v. Southern Ry . Sy s., 157 F.2d 609, 610-11 ( D.C. Cir. 1946) (statingthat a “c ommon car rier is re quired to protec t its passeng ers ag ainst assault or interf erence w ith the peac eful completion of their journey .”); Pullman Co. v. Hall, 46 F.2d 399, 404 (4th Cir. 1931) (noting exception to general liability rule a nd holding c ommon carrier liable to pa sseng er f or a servant’s assault); PacificS.S. C o. v. Sutton, 7 F.2d 579, 580 (9th Cir. 1925) (steam ship compa ny has duty “to ca rry safe ly and to protec t its passeng er f rom violenceand insult committ ed by its own serva nts.”); Kansa s City

S. Ry . Co. v. W illsi e, 224 F . 908, 910 (8th Cir. 1915) (discussing“the a bs olutenatureof

thec arrie r’ s d

uty to p ro te c t th epa sseng e r f ro m th ea ssa

ult s a nd ins ult s o f i ts own serva

nts during thetransit”); Mar ks v. Alaska S.S. Co., 127 P . 1101, 1101 (Wash. 1912) (ship owner

owed to passeng er “ a duty of absolute protection from the a ssaults and ag gressions of it serva nts, and the rule is we ll-nigh unive rsal that the c arrier c annot plead a s a def ense that the serva nt acted outside thescope of his employ

ment.”); seealso The Minnetonka , 146 F. 509, 513 (2nd Cir. 1906) (noting , where a c rewmember stole a ship passeng er’ s jewelry, that the liability of the ve ssel for the w illful torts of its crew is “we ll established.”). 34 d is c u s s e d tr a in c a s e s . I n tu r n , J o p e s , a tr a in c a s e , c ite d a n d d is c u s s e d B r o c k e tt. 15 A fter n o ti n g in Jo p es th at a c o m m o n ca rr ier is liab le fo r its em p lo ye e’s as sa ul ton a pas se ng erou t si de the sc op e of hi s e m pl oym ent , the S up re m e C ou rt the n de a l tw i th the na r r ow i s s ue of w he the ra n e m pl oy e e ’ s c onduc tm us tbe un l aw ful before i ttri gg er s thi s s tri ng entl i abi l i ty i m po se d o n t he com m on ca rr i er em p lo ye r. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt co n clu d ed th at if th e c o n d u cto r- em p lo ye e’s shoo t i ng the pass enger w as i n sel f- defe nse a nd there fore l aw ful , the em pl oyee w as no tl i abl e a nd i n turn t he com m on -c arri erem pl oyerw as no tl i abl e. Id. , 14 2 U . S . at 27, 12 S . C t . a t112. 16De fend ants arguethat th edis tric t c ourt ’s dis mis sal of Do e ’s bre a c h- of

-c ontra c t c laims 17 makes it impossibl e for

her to re cover . Whil e it is the contrac t for saf e tra nsportation that cre ates an im pli e d d uty on thepa rt of thec omm on

c arrie r t o p ro te c t and

sa fe ly trans po rt its pa sseng e rs , the “breac h of the c arrier’s duty is a maritime tort.” Kor

nberg , 741 F.2d at 1334 (11th Cir. 1984) 35 I ti s not e w or thy tha tJ ope s r e l i e d upon the c a r r i e r - pa s s e nge rr e l a t i ons hi p a nd th e “p e c u lia rc ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h s u r r o u n d th e c a r r y in g o f p a s s e n g e r s .” I d . A c om m on c a r r i e r ’ s s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty t o a pa s s e nge rf orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s dur i ng tr a n s it r e s ts u p o n its s p e c ia l im p lie d d u ty o f p r o te c tio n a n d s a f

e tr a n s p o r t th a t it ow e s a s a c om m on c a r r i e rthr ough i t s e m pl oy e e s t o i t s pa s s e nge r s , a nd notf orthe re as o n th at th e a ct is in cid en t t o a d u ty w ith in th e s co p e o f th e c re w m em b er ’s em pl oym ent . S ee , e. g. K ansa s C i ty S . R y. C o. v. W i l l si e, 22 4 F . 90 8, 91 1 (8t h C i r. 19 15 ) ( ac kn ow l edgi ng “ the absol ut e nature” of the ca rr i er ’ s dut y t o p rot ec t p a s s e n g e r s f

r o m a s s a u lts b y its e m p lo y e e s a n d s ta tin g th a t “[ t]h e c a r r ie ris lia b le in s u c h c a s e s b e c a u s e th e a c t is v io la tiv e o f th e d u ty a n d a b r e a c h o f th e o b lig a tio n it o w e s th r o u g h th e s e r v a n t to th e p a s s e n g e r , a n d n o t u p o n th e id e a th a t th e a c t is i n ci d en tt o a d u ty w i th i n th e sco p e o f th e serv an t ' s em p l o ym en t ”). In o th er w o rd s, the r a t i ona l e f

ori m pos i ng s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty on the c om m on c a r r i e re m pl oy e ri s the c a r r ie r - p a s s e n g e rr e la tio n s h ip a n d th e c o r r e s p o n d in g e x is te n c e o f a n im p lie d d u ty of pr ot e c t i on a nd s a f

e tr a ns por tf

r e e f r om a s s a ul tby the c a r r i e r ’ s e m pl oy e e s dur i ng tr a n s it. I n te r m s o f

to r t lia b ility , th is b e c o m e s , in e f f e c t, a s p e c ia l n o n - d e le g a b le du ty ow ed by the ca rr i ert o t he pass enger. 17(citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Nadeau v. Costley , 634 So. 2d 649, 653 (Fla.

Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (concludingthat the bre ach of a cr uise line’s duty

to protect its passeng ers due to a c rew -member

assault is actionable“in tort (strict vica rious liability) or c ontrac t (breach of contract of c arriag e base d on an intentional assault)” ). In this same comment to the Restatement ( Second) of Ag ency, the American L aw 18 Institut e also provide d the followingillustration: “P, a railroad, employs A, a qualified conductor , to take cha

rg e of a train. A a ssaults T, a passeng er. P is subject to liability to T.” Restatement (Sec ond) of Ag ency § 214 cmt. e, illus. 3 (1958).

36 A s pl ai nt i ff

po i nt s out , a c om m entt o t he R es t at em ent(S ec on d) of A gency e xpl a i ns how a duty t o pr ot e c tm a y be i m pos e d by l a w by vi r tue of a nd a s i nc i de nt t o th e carrier-passen g er rel at i o n sh i p , as fo l l o w s:

A m as t eror ot her pri nci pal m ay be i n such rel at i on s t o ano ther th a t h e h a s a d u ty to p r o te c t, o rto s e e th a t d u e c a r e is u s e d to p r o te c t, such ot her f

rom harm al tho ug h n otca used by an ent erpri se w hi ch has b e e n in itia te d b y th e m a s te ro rb y th in g s o w n e d o rp o s s e s s e d b y h im . T hi s dut y m ay be cr ea t ed by cont ra ct , as w here on e a gree s t o p rot ec t a nothe r , orm a y be i m pos e d by l a w a s i nc i de ntt o a r e l a t i on vol unt a r i l y e nt e r e d i nt o, a s the r e l a t i on of c a r r i e ra nd pa s s e nge r , orby s t a tut e . . . . [ T ] he f

a c ttha tthe one t o w hom the pe r f or m a nc e of

the d u ty is d e le g a te d a c ts f

o rh is o w n p u rp o s e s a n d w ith n o in te n t to b e n e f it th e p r in c ip a l o rm a s te ris im m a te r ia l. R es t at em ent(S ec on d) of A gency § 21 4 cm t . e ( 19 58 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). 18 F urther, w e r ej ec tthe defendant s’ cl ai m thatthe S up re m e C ou rtabando ned the J ope s rul e i n K e r m a r e c v. C om pa gni e G e ne r a l e T r a ns a t l a nt i que , 358 U . S . 625, 79 S . C t . 40 6 (19 59 ). In K er m ar ec , the pl ai nt i ff w as no ta pas se ng er , bu tw as v i si t i n g a crew m em b er. W h i l e o n b o ard th e sh i p , th e p l ai n t i ff fel l o n a st ai rcase al l egedl y due t o t he i m prop erw ay a run ner w as att ac hed t o t he st ai rs . T he pl ai nt i ff37

s u e d f o rp e r s o n a l i n

j u r y d u e t o th e s h i p o w n e r ’ s n e g l i g e n c e . I d . a t6 2 6 - 2 7 , 7 9 S. C t . at40 7-08 . T he di stri ctcourti n K er m ar ec concl ud ed thatthe shi p o w ed a l ow er st andard of car e t o t he pl ai nt i ff as a “ gratui t ou s l i ce nsee ” und erthe l aw s of N ew Y o r k . I d . a t 6 2 9 , 7 9 S . C t. a t 4 0 9 . T he S up re m e C ou rti n K er m ar ec deci ded t hatadm i ra l ty l aw need no ti m po rt the l and-based com m on l aw di st i nct i on s betw ee n “ i nv i t ee s” and “ l i ce nsee s, ” I d. at 63 1, 79 S . C t . at41 0, and con cl ud ed “ thatthe ow ner of a shi p i n n avi gabl e w at er s o w e s to a ll w h o a r e o n b o a r d f o rp u rp o s e s n o t in im ic a l to h is le g itim a te in te r e s ts the du ty of e xerc i si ng re as on abl e c ar e und erthe ci rc um st ance s of e ac h cas e. ” I d. at 6 3 2 , 7 9 S. Ct . a t4 1 0 . I n a n a l y z i n g th e s h i p ’ s l i a b i l i ty t o th e v i s i t o r , th e Su p r e me C o u r t in K e r m a r e c a ls o s ta te d th a t, “[ i]t is a s e ttle d p r in c ip le o f m a r itim e la w th a t a shi po w ner ow es a dut y of e xerc i si ng re as on abl e c ar e t ow ar ds tho se l aw ful l y abo ar d th e v e s s e l w h o a r e n o t m e m b e r s o f th e c r e w .” I d . a t 6 3 0 , 7 9 S . C t. a t 4 0 9 . W h i l e th i s r e a s o n a b l e c a r e l a n g u a g e i n K e r ma r e c i s b r o a d , th e Su p r e me C our tw a s a ns w e r i ng onl y a na r r ow que s t i on of l a w r e ga r di ng w he the rthe di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n “ l i c e ns e e s ” a nd “ i nvi t e e s ” i m pos e d a l ow e rs t a nda r d of c a r e on s h ip o w n e r s in a s lip - a n d - f a ll c a s e . M ore i m po rt ant l y, K er m ar ec di d n oti nv ol ve an as sa ul tor any i nt ent i on al t o rtco m m i t t ed b y a crew m em b er o n a p assen g er. R ath er, K erm arec w as aEarlier we noted that Section 214 of the Restateme nt (Second) of Ag ency supports our 19 conclusion re g ardingcommon car rier liability

for c rewmember a ssaults. L ikewise, the te ntative draf t of the Restateme nt (Third) of Ag ency, in the correspondingsection states: “Aprincipal re qu ir e d b y

law t o p ro te c t ano ther c ann ot a vo id l ia bil ity by de le g atingpe rf

or manc eof theduty to another , whether

or not the dele g ate is an ag ent.” Restate ment (Third) of Ag ency § 7.06 (T e ntativ eDra ft

No . 5 , 2 00 4) . T here le va nt c omm e nt n ote s th at th ese c tio n “ state s th eba sic tort-law principle that a principal may be subjec t to liabili ty

to a third person when the principal i s un d e r a d uty t o p r o t e c tth atp e r s o n . T h ep ri n c ip l ei s o f t e nt e r m e d o n eo f " n o n d e l e g a

b l e " d uty . . .” I d. § 7.06, cmt. a. F urther, theReporter ’s Notes unde r this section specif ically apply the samerulea s w edo to s hip owne rs ’ l ia bil ity fo r t he ir c rew’ s mi sc on du c t a g a ins t pa sseng e rs : In a dmiralty

c a se s, it w a s lo nga ssume d th at a sh ip o wn e r w a s su

bje c t to lia

bil ity for its employees' misconduct ag ainst passeng ers. SeeNew Jersey Steamboat Co. v. B ro c ke tt, 12 1 U .S. 63 7 ( 18 87 ) ( sh ip o wn e r l ia blewh e n e mpl oye efo rc ibly remov e d p a sseng e r f

ro m are a of sh ip) ; N e w O rl e ans &N. E. R.R . Co . v . Jop e s, 14 2 U .S. 18 (1 89 1) (e xten din gowne r' s st ri c t li a bil ity un de r B ro c ke tt t o circ umstances in which employee acted outside scopeof employ ment, as by shooting pa sseng er) . In Ker mare c v. Compagnie GeneraleTransatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 632 (1959), the Court held that " the owner of a ship in navig able waters ow e s to a ll who areon

bo ard fo r p ur po se s n ot inimic a l to his le g iti mateint e re sts theduty of e xerc isi ngre a so na

blec areun de r t

hec irc ums tanc e s. " Kerm are c did not overruleBrockett or Jopes, howeve r, and involves not an employee' s tort ag ainst a passe ng er but a

passeng er' s fall down a de fec tively-construc ted stairca se. I d., note b. 38 c om m on, ga r de n va r i e ty ne gl i ge nc e c a s e no m a t t e rhow i ti s c ha r a c t e r i z e d. I nde e d, K e r m a r e c a ddr e s s e d the s t a nda r d of c a r e ow e d by c om m on c a r r i e r s i n a s i tua t i on w he r e a pe r s on s us t a i ne d pe r s ona l i nj ur i e s due t o the phy s i c a l c ondi t i on of the sh i p . F u rth er, K erm arec d i d n o tci t e o r d i scu ss B ro ck et to r Jo p es. Q u i t e si m p l y, the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on i n K e r m a r e c tha tthe S upr e m e C our ti nt e nde d t o e l i m i na t e the m o r e s tr in g e n t ru le in J o p e s im p o s in g lia b ility o n a c o m m o n c a r r ie rf o rits em p l o yees’ assau l t s o f p assen g ers. 19Intere stingly , our re adingof the rule s enunciated in Brockett and Jopes is consistent 20 with the current congressional dire ction on the issue bef ore us. In 1996, Congress amende d 46 U.S.C. App. § 183c, which for bids a vessel owner or operator f rom contra ctually

limit ing neg ligence liability , to include a se ction allowingthe vessel to limit it s liability for the inf

liction of emotional distress. Pub.L . 104-324, § 1129(b) . However, Congress spec ifically provided that su c h c ontra c tual li mit atio ns on lia bil ity c ou ld n ot l imi t li a

bil ity fo r dist re ss “ int e nti on a lly inflicted by

a crewmember or the ma nag er, ag ent, master, owner or operator.” 46 U.S.C. App. § 1 83 c (b )( 1) (C ). Th estatut efu rt he r p ro vid e s th at “ [n]othingin t his su bs e c tio n is int e nd e d to limitthe liability

of a c rewmember or

the manag er, ag ent, master, owner, or operator of a ve ssel in a ca se involving se xual harassment, sexual assault, or ra pe.” 46 U .S.C. App. § 183c(b)(2) . 39 A l though w e a gr e e w i th the de f e nda nt s tha tthe a ge of

the B r oc ke t ta nd J o p e s d e c i s i o n s a n d th e i n t e r v e n i n g d e c i s i o n i n K e r ma r e c s u g g e s tth a tth e Su p r e me C our tm i ghtw e l l r e c ons i de ri t s f or m e rrul i ngs w e r e a n oppor tuni ty t o a r i s e , the defe nd ant s f

ai l t o p er suade us thatK er m ar ec ov errul ed B rockettand Jop es , ei ther expl i ci t l y or i m pl i ci t l y. Inst ea d, w e a gree w i th D oe thatB rockettand Jop es r e p r e s e n t th e c u r r e n t s ta te o f th e c o n tr o llin g f

e d e r a l la w a s to c r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts on pass engers . O ur prece dent , as w el l as the deci si on s of other c i rc ui t s, supp ort 20 thi s c onc l us i on. 2 . E le v e n t h C ir c u it W hi l e w e c a n l oc a t e no pos t - K e r m a r e c de c i s i on i n ourC i r c ui ti nvol vi ng a c r e w m e m be ra s s a ul ton a pa s s e nge r , the r e i s a s l i p- a nd- f a l l de c i s i on tha tm e nt i ons i n d i ct a “ th e u n co n d i t i o n al resp o n si b i l i ty” a co m m o n carri er h as fo r i t s em p l o yees’ m i sc on du ct . T ul l i s v. F i d. & C as . C o. of N ew Y ork, 39 7 F . 2d 22 , 23 (5th C i r.In the ca se of B onner v. Pricha rd, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (e n banc) , the 21 Eleventh Circuit adopte d as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to closeof business on September 30, 1981. De fend ants ’ re lia

nc eon Gibb on e y

v. Wri ght, 51 7 F .2 d 1 05 4 ( 5th Cir . 1 97 5) , is 22 misplaced. There, thedefendant was theprivate owner of a plea sure c raf

t, not a common car

rier for hire , and the plaintiffs w ereinjured by an improperly

secured fue l tank and not by an assa ult. At be st, Gibb on e y

sta nd s f or theprop os iti on

a c kn ow le dg e d a

bo vethat ou

r C irc uit a pp lie s a rea sonable c arestandard in c ases involvingalleg ed def ects in a ve ssel’s physical condition. 40 1 9 6 8 ) . I n T u llis , th is C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t n e g lig e n c e w a s th e a p p lic a b le lia b ility

21 st an d ard fo r th e sl i p -an d -fal l i n th atcase an d ci t ed K erm arec. T h i s C o u rti n T u l l i s, h o w e v e r , a ls o n o te d th a t in a n a d m ir a lty a c tio n in v o lv in g lia b ility to s h ip pa s s e nge r s , “ [ t ] he l i a bi l i ty ba s i s i s ne gl i ge nc e w i th the onl y a ppa r e nte xc e pt i on bei ng the un cond i t i on al re spon si bi l i ty of the ca rr i erfor the m i sc on du ctof the cr ew t ow a r d the pa s s e nge r s . ” I d. a t23. O ur ot her s l i p-and-fal l ca se s app l y the K er m ar ec st andard of rea sonabl e c ar e u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . E v e r e tt v . C a r n iv a l C ru is e L in e s , 9 1 2 F .2 d 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1990) ( pa s s e nge rtr i ppe d ove rm e t a l thr e s hol d c ove ri n a door w a y ) ; K e e f e v. B a ha m a C rui s e L i ne s , I nc . , 867 F . 2d 1318 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( pa s s e nge rs l i ppe d a nd fe ll in a c ru ise s h ip d isco ). A fo u rth d ec isio n also in v o lv es d ef ec ts in th e s h ip ’s phy s i c a l c ondi t i on a nd a dopt s K e r m a r e c ’ s ne gl i ge nc e s t a nda r d. K or nbe r g, 741 F . 2d at13 34 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ) ( i n cas e i nv ol vi ng fa i l ure of c rui se shi p’ s s ani t ary sy st em , courtst at ed “ [a ] ca rr i erby se a . . . i s notl i abl e t o p as se ng er s a s a n i nsurer , b u t o n ly f

o rits n e g lig e n c e .” ) ( c itin g K e r m a r e c ) . N o n e o f th e s e f o u rp h y s ic a l- 22The district cour t in this caseand another district court in F lorida both conc luded that 23 Kerm are c did

no t ov e rt ur n th erulein B ro c ke tt a

nd Jope s th at a

c omm on c arrie r i s v ic ari ou sly liable for c rewmember a ssaults on passeng ers. SeeDoe v. Celebrity Cruises, 145 F.Supp. 2d 13 37 , 1 34 2 ( S.D . F la . 2 00 1) (c on c ludingthat th eEl e ve nth Circ uit wo uld a do pt t he“ ma jority view”that Ke rm are c did

no t c ha ng ethestric t or

vic ari ou s li a

bil ity rulefo r c rew m e mber a ssa ult s and statin gthat “ [t]his ma

jority view m ake s th emos t sens ebe c a us eit l imi ts Ke rm are c to i ts fac ts, while impli citly

rec ognizi ngthat Supreme Court ca ses such a s Brockett and Jopes have not been overruled.” ); Stires v. Carnival Corp., 243 F .Supp. 2d 1313, 1318 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (“Kerma recis disti nguishable on its fac ts and absent bindingEleventh Circuit pre cedent, the majority rule is that a c ommon carrier, such a s a cr uise line, is vicariously

liable for the intentional torts of its employees.” ) (c iting Doe , 145 F. Supp. at 1341-45) . 41 c o n d itio n c a s e s c ite s J o p e s o rB r o c k e tt, a n d n o n e in v o lv e s a c r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lt o n a p a s s e n g e r . I n s um , w hi l e ourpr e c e de nta ppl i e s K e r m a r e c ’ s ne gl i ge nc e s t a nda r d i n s l i pa n d - f a ll a n d o th e rp h y s ic a l c o n d itio n c a s e s a s d id K e r m a r e c its e lf , o u rd e c is io n in T ul l i s a ckno w l edged t he “ un cond i t i on al re spon si bi l i ty” exce pt i on for c re w m em ber m is c o n d u c t to w a r d a p a s s e n g e r . O u rp r e c e d e n t th u s d o e s n o t, a n d in d e e d c o u ld 23 n o t, a lte rJ o p e s ’ s tr ic t lia b ility ru le f o rs u c h a s s a u lts . 3. O th er C i rc u i ts O n ly th e N in th C ir c u it h a s s q u a r e ly a n s w e r e d th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e r , p o s tK er m ar ec , a c rui se l i ne, as a c om m on ca rr i er , re m ai ns stri ct l y l i abl e f or cr ew m em ber a ss aul t s on p as se ng er s. M ort on v. D e O l i vei ra , 98 4 F . 2d 28 9 (9t h C i r. 1993) . A s e xpl a i ne d be l ow , the N i nth C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha tK e r m a r e c di d not o v e r tu r n th e g e n e r a l m a r itim e ru le th a t a s h ip , lik e o th e rc o m m o n c a r r ie r s , is absol ut el y l i abl e f

or cr ew m em ber a ss aul t s on i t s pas se ng er s duri ng tra nsi t . Id. atIn M or ton , a s in thi s c a se , th emain f

a c tual di sp utewa s o ver c on se nt. Th ede fend ants 24 claimed that the c rewmember w as delivering milk and the pa sseng er invited him in for wineand seduce d him. The passeng er alleg ed that the c rewmember a ppeared at her door with a bottle of wine, said hethought shewould like to sample some, and raped her. 984 F .2d at 290. 42 2 9 2 . In M ort on , the pl ai nt i ff w as al on e i n h ercabi n w hen a cre w m em ber de l i ve r e d w i ne a nd r a pe d he r . T he pl a i nt i f f s ue d, a s s e r t i ng “ a bs ol ut e l i a bi l i ty ” on 24 the pa r tof

the c rui s e l i ne f

orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s on pa s s e nge r s . I d. a t290. T he pl a i nt i f f c onc e de d tha ts he w a s “ una bl e t o s how a ny ne gl i ge nc e by [ the de f e nda nt crui se l i ne] i n h i ri ng or supervi si ng ” i t s c re w m em ber. Id. T he di stri ctcourt det er m i ned t hatthe stri ctl i abi l i ty s t andard for as sa ul t s w as “ supers eded or ov er ru le d b y K e r m a r e c .” I d . R e v e r s in g , th e N in th C ir c u it d e te r m in e d th a t “K e r m a r e c c a n n o t b e r e a d to ov errul e” the m ar i t i m e t ortpri nci pl e thata c om m on ca rr i erow es a dut y t o p rot ec t pass engers fr om as sa ul t s by i t s c re w m em bers and i s absol ut el y l i abl e f or such a s s a ul t s . I d. a t292. T he N i nth C i r c ui tnot e d tha tthi s a bs ol ut e l i a bi l i ty rul e “ f or crew m em b er assau l t s can n o tb e traced t o o b so l et e co n cep t s, ” b u tth at“ i ti s a w id e ly a d o p te d ru le th a t c o m m o n c a r r ie r s o w e s u c h a n a b s o lu te d u ty to th e ir pa s s e nge r s . ” I d. a t291- 92 ( c i t i ng S t . M i c he l l e v. C a t a ni a , 250 A . 2d 874, 876- 78 (M d. 19 69 ) ( ca rr i ervi ca ri ou sl y l i abl e f or as sa ul t s c om m i t t ed by em pl oyee s e ven out s i de the i re m pl oy m e ntdur i ng the c ontr a c tf ortr a ns por t a t i on) ; W hi t t l e v.In rea chingits conclusions, the Ninth Circuit in Morton also relied heavily upon its own 25 1925 decision in Pacific S.S. Co. v. Sutton, 7 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1925). Morton, 984 F .2d at 290- 91. In Sutton, two crewmen se xually assaulted a

female passeng er. TheNinth Circuit concluded that the def

endant ship as a

common car

rier ow ed to plaintiff “a

duty of absolute protection from the assaults and ag gressions of its serva nts” and stated that “the ruleis well nigh unive rsal that the ca rrier cannot plead as a de fensethat the serva nt acted outside thescope of his employ

ment.” Sutton, 7 F.2d at 580 (internal quotations and citations omitt ed). The de fenda

nts also rely

upon two Fifth Circuit dec isions, J ackson Ma rine Corp. v. 26 BlueFox, 845 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1988), and Smith v. S. Gulf Marine Co. No. 2, Inc., 791 F .2d 43 S ou thern B el l T el . & T el . C o. , 41 0 S . E . 2d 57 5, 57 5 (S . C . C t . A pp . 19 91 ) ( sa m e) ; N a z a r e th v . H e r n d o n A m b u la n c e S e r v ., I n c ., 4 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 7 8 ( F la . D is t. C t. A pp . ) ( sa m e) , re vi ew deni ed 47 8 S o. 2d 53 (F l a. 19 85 )) . T he N i nth C i r c ui ti n M or t on a l s o r e l i e d upon thi s obs e r va t i on, by a l e a di ng t ort s tre at i se , expl ai ni ng the no n-del egabl e dut y of prot ec t i ve ca re : W he r e the de l i be r a t e orw i l l f ul w r ong w a s notdone t o f ur the rthe m a s t e r ' s bus i ne s s the t e nde nc y ha s be e n t o de ny vi c a r i ous l i a bi l i ty , but h e r e to o th e r e h a v e b e e n m a n y q u a lif ic a tio n s . T h e r e la tio n s h ip betw ee n m as t erand p l ai nt i ff m ay be such as t o p uton the m as t era d u ty o f p r o te c tiv e c a r e th a t h e m a y n o t d e le g a te . T h u s a c a r r ie ris lia b le to its p a s s e n g e r s f o ra s s a u lts b y e m p lo y e e s p r o m p te d b y p u r e ly p e r s o n a l mo t i v e s . 5 Fo w l e rV . H a rp e r , Fl e mi n g J a me s , J r . , & O s c a rS. G ra y, T he L aw of T ort s § 26 . 9, at53 (2d ed. 19 86 ). M ort on , 98 4 F . 2d at29 2 (em ph as i s a dd ed). 25 T h e d ef en d an ts ar g u e th at a c ircu itsp li t i s c re ated b y th e F irst C ircu it ’s de c i s i on i n M ur a t or e v. M / S S c ot i a P r i nc e , 845 F . 2d 347 ( 1s tC i r . 1988) , a nd the Se c o n d Ci r c u i t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n Co mp a g n i e G e n e r a l e Tr a n s a t l a n t i q u e v . Ri v e r s , 2 1 1 F. 2 9 4 (2 n d C i r. 1 9 1 4 ). W e d i sag ree an d ex p l ai n w h y. 26416 (5th Cir. 1986). Neither decision, howe ver, involves a crew member

assault on a pa sseng er, and bo th a reoth e rw isequ itedif

ferent f ro m th is c a se . Ind e e d, Smit h d e a lt w itha

slip- and -f

a ll aboard a vesse l char

tere d specially

to transport workers to their work site. A lthough a pplying the Ker mare c “reasona

bleness” sta

ndard in Smith, the Fifth Circuit reversed judgment for the defendant ship-owner , and held it liable to plaintiff as a matter of la

w. Smith, 791 F.2d at 421. Jac ks on Marineis e ve n mo reina

pp os itea s it

inv olv e d f

ra ud by a salvag ebo at c a

ptain ag ainst the owner

of a da mag ed ship, and in no wa y involved a common ca

rrier or a pa sseng er. In J ackson Ma

rine, the F ifth Circuit concluded that the ship owner wa s vicariously liable for the captain’s torts, albeit with the requirement that they be committed “within the scopeof the captains normal duties and employ ment.” 845 F .2d at 1310. Neither Smith nor Jackson Marine a ssi st u s in

de te rm ininga

c ruiselin e ’s lia

bil ity fo r c rew m e mber a ssa

ult s o n p a sseng e rs . Despite this clea

r statement in the liability section, the F irst Circuit’s Muratoredecision 27 contains a separate sec tion entitled “IV. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.” In that damag es section, the F irst Circuit discussed the defendant’s conc ern “ that the lower court maderepe ated ref erence of the ca rrier ’s higher de greeof ca re.”I d. The F irst Circuit then cited Ker mare c and state d th at, “ it i s axiomaticin m ari tim elaw that a c arrie r o we s a

duty of e xerc isi ngre a so na

ble care towards its passeng ers under the c ircumstance s.” I d. L ater , the Fir st Circuit cited Kerma rec ag ain and state d that the duty of exercisingrea sonable c areunder thecirc umstances is “the a pp ropriatele g a l st and ard .”I d. at 35 4. Th eF ir st C irc uit c on c lud e d th at th edis tric t c ourt ’s us e of the languag e “spe cial duty” in its jury charg e wa s not prejudicial to the def endant a nd 44 I n M ur a t or e , the F i r s tC i r c ui ti s e qui voc a l , buta ppe a r s t o ha ve f ol l ow e d the absol ut e l i abi l i ty rul e. T here , cr ew ph ot og raph er s har as se d t he pl ai nt i ff pass enger, d is r e g a r d e d h e rr e q u e s t n o t to b e p h o to g r ap h e d , a n d r e p e a te d ly to o k h e rp ic tu r e . M u ra to re , 8 4 5 F .2 d at 3 4 9 -5 0 . T h e F irst C ircu itre jected th e d ef

en d an t sh ip ’s cont ent i on that“ even i f the ph ot og raph er s’ cond uctconst i tut es i nt ent i on al i nf l i c t i on of e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s , de f

e nda ntc a nnotbe he l d l e ga l l y r e s pons i bl e f or th e p h o t o g rap h ers’ co n d u ct . ” Id . at3 5 3 . A ffi rm i n g th e sh i p ’ s v i cari o u s l i ab i l i ty, th e F ir s t C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d , “a m a r itim e c a r r ie rh a s a n u n c o n d itio n a l r e s p o n s ib ility f orthe m i s c onduc tof

i t s pe opl e t ow a r d the pa s s e nge r s . ” I d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on om i t t ed). 27aff

irmed the a

ward of compe nsatory

damag es. I d. In the end, the F irst Circuit’s Muratore decision at wor st points i n both directions: unconditional responsibility and re asonablecare under thecirc umstances. We also note that a district court in Maine recently conclude d that under Muratorea cr

uise line is unconditionally liable for a

crew member ’s sexual assault of a passeng er. Pete rson v. Scotia Prince Cruises, Ltd., 328 F. Supp. 2d 119, 122 (D. Me. 2004) . 45 W e a ls o a g r e e w ith D o e th a t th e S e c o n d C ir c u it in R iv e r s d id n o t n e c e s s a r ily a dopta ne gl i ge nc e / s c ope - of - e m pl oy m e ntrul e f

orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s on pass engers . In R i vers , a c re w m em ber hi d i n t he pl ai nt i ff’ s c abi n, w ai t ed for her r e tur n, a nd a t t a c ke d he r . A f t e ra ve r di c tf

orthe pl a i nt i f

f , the de f e nda nta ppe a l e d, c l a i m i ng e r r orbe c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tha d c ha r ge d the j ur y “ tha tthe de f e nda nt w a s b o u n d to a n o b lig a tio n ‘o f th e v e r y h ig h e s t d e g r e e o f c a r e to p r o te c t its pa s s e nge r s . ’ ” 211 F . a t298. T he di s tr i c tc our t , how e ve r , ha d a l s o i ns truc t e d the ju r y th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s n o t a n a b s o lu te in s u r e ra g a in s t a s s a u lts a n d th a t a pa s s e nge rc oul d notr e c ove runl e s s the r e w a s s om e ne gl i ge nc e by the c a r r i e r . I d. T he di stri ctcourtal so “ po i nt ed ou tthe di ff er ence betw ee n an ass aul tby an em pl oyee w hen carryi ng ou tthe orders of hi s e m pl oyerand a w ant on on e, c o m m itte d w h e n o f

f d u ty .” I d . In af fi rm i ng the verdi ctfor the pl ai nt i ff , the S ec on d C i rc ui ti n R i vers ci t ed Jopes a nd T he M i nn et on ka, and rem ar ked t hatthe di stri ctcourthad “ i nstruct ed mo r e f a v o r a b l y t o d e f

e n d a n tth a n s o me o f

th e a u th o r i t i e s i n d i c a t e . ” Ri v e r s , 2 1 1 F. a t 2 9 8 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e M in n e to n k a , lik e J o p e s , im p o s e d a s tr ic t lia b ilityIn T heMinne tonka , th eSe c on d Ci rcuit a ff ir me d th eve rdic t f

or thepa sseng e r ag a ins t 28 theste amsh ip c arrie r f

or thevalueof

je we lr y sto le n b y a stewa rd wh o c ameint o th estate ro om, rea ched over the pa sseng er in he r ber th and seized the jewe lry

bag . 146 F. at 512-13. Pos t- Kerm are c de c isi on s in theSe c on d Ci rcuit , a s in thi s Ci rcuit , a do pt a

re a so na ble 29 care standa

rd for slip-and-fall lawsuits by

passeng ers where no c rewmember a ssault is invol ved. Se ee .g ., Mo nte le on ev. B ahama Cr uis eL ine , Inc ., 83 8 F .2 d 6 3 ( 2n d Ci r. 19 88 ) (plaintif f f e ll down a f light of stair s); Rainey

v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F .2d 169 (2nd Cir. 1983) (plaintiff tripped over

a stool in ship dis co). We rea d Rivers as af

firmingthe verdict for the plaintiff primarily beca use, although the 30 district court had improperly permitted the jury

to apply a less string ent standard of ca re ( i.e. neg ligence) , the evidenc e at trial demonstrated the ship owner wa s still liable to the passeng er even under the lowe r “ne g ligence”standard of care. However, thedistrict courts in New Y ork have read River s as establishinga neg ligence sta ndard. Y ork v. Commodore Cruise L ine, Ltd., 863 F.Supp. 159, 162 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ; J aff ess v. Home Lines, Inc., 1988 WL42049, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 1988). 46 ru le . I n d e e d , th e S e c o n d C ir c u it in T h e M in n e to n k a s ta te d th a t “[ t]h e a r c h a ic doc tr i ne tha tthe m om e nta s e r va ntof a c a r r i e rc om m i t s a w a nt on a s s a ul tupon a pass enger he ac t s out si de the sc op e of hi s a ut ho ri ty a nd thu s r el ea se s hi s e m pl oyer f r o m lia b ility w a s lo n g a g o r e n o u n c e d b y th e g r e a t p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f a u th o r ity .” 146 F . a t513. G i ve n R i ve r s ’ s r e l i a nc e on J ope s a nd T he M i nne t onka f ors t a t i ng 28 tha tthe j ur y c ha r ge w a s m or e f a vor a bl e t o the de f

e nda nttha n i ndi c a t e d, w e do not re ad R i vers as nece ss ar i l y e st abl i shi ng a negl i gence/ sc op e- of-e m pl oym entst andard f o rc r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts o n p a s s e n g e r s . A t w o r s t, th e im p o r t o f R iv e r s is 29 un cl ea r. 30 H a vi ng c a nva s s e d the r e l e va ntS upr e m e C our ta nd c i r c ui tpr e c e de nt , w e now turn t o t he l i abi l i ty i ss ues on app ea l i n t hi s c as e.47

4 . L e g a l S t a n d a r d Go v e r n i n g Do e ’ s Cl a i ms T h e p ri n ci p al l i ab i l i ty i ssu e i s w h i ch st an d ard g o v ern s th e d efen d an t s’ l i a bi l i ty t o i t s pa s s e nge rD oe f orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s : ( 1) s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty or( 2) r e a s o n a b le c a r e u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . F orthe r e a s ons w e ha ve de t a i l e d a ts om e l e ngth, w e c onc l ude tha tthe defe nd ant s ow e a no n-del egabl e dut y t o p rot ec tthei r pas se ng er s f rom cr ew m e m be ra s s a ul t s a nd the r e by s a f e l y tr a ns por tthe i rc rui s e pa s s e nge r s , tha tthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on s i n B rockettand Jop es re m ai n b i nd i ng prec edent , that K e r m a r e c di d notove r rul e B r oc ke t torJ ope s , a nd thus tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e r ri n c onc l udi ng tha tthe de f e nda nt s a r e s tr i c t l y l i a bl e f orc r e w m e m be ra s s a ul t s on thei r pas se ng er s duri ng the crui se . W e a dd thatK er m ar ec ’ s r ea sonabl e c ar e st an d ard d o es n o tap p l y t o a crew m em b er’ s sex u al assau l to n a p assen g er. T u l l i s, 397 F . 2d a t23. W e turn, then, t o t he defendant s’ al t ernat i ve ar gu m entthateven i f the stri ct l i abi l i ty s t andard go verns c re w m em ber a ss aul t s on p as se ng er s duri ng a c rui se , that st andard cannot app l y f ac tual l y t o t hi s par t i cul arca se beca use ( 1) the se xu al bat t ery occurre d w hi l e A ydi n w as off dut y a nd off the shi p and (2) the spec i al ca rr i er p assen g er rel at i o n sh i p w as sev ered w h en D o e an d A yd i n l eftth e sh i p ’ s p rem i ses. 5 . C a r r ie r - P a s s e n g e r R e la t io n s h ip B e t w e e n D o e a n d A y d in48

T he ca se prec edentes t abl i shes that , du e t o t he spec i al ca rr i er -pas se ng er r e la tio n s h ip , th e d e f

e n d a n ts h a d a n o n - d e le g a b le d u ty to p r o te c t a n d s a f e ly tra nspo rtD oe du ri ng the crui se , and t hu s a re l i abl e i f a cr ew m em ber a ss aul t ed her d u ri n g th e cru i se. T h ere i s n o d i sp u t e th atth i s carri er-p assen g er rel at i o n sh i p h as a t e m por a l l i m i tba s e d on the dur a t i on of the c rui s e . T hi s s e xua l ba t t e r y oc c ur r e d on Ju l y 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 , an d u n d i sp u t ed l y fel l w i th i n th e sev en -d ay t i m e p eri o d o f th e cru i se f r o m J u ly 1 7 to J u ly 2 4 , 1 9 9 9 . T h e n ex ti ssu e i s w h eth er th e co m m o n carri er-p assen g er rel at i o n sh i p h as a stri ctspat i al l i m i tso thatthe com m on ca rr i er -pas se ng erre l at i on shi p w as se vere d w he n D oe a nd A y di n l e f tthe s hi p’ s pr e m i s e s . F orthe r e a s ons out l i ne d i n the ju r is d ic tio n s e c tio n a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c a rr ie r - p a s s e n g e rr e la tio n s h ip c o n tin u e d b e tw e e n th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d D o e d u r in g h e rin te r a c tio n w ith A y d in in th is s c h e d u le d p o r t- o f

- c a ll. In thi s r egar d t he defendant s e m ph as i ze thatA ydi n w as no ton l y on sho re , bu tal so “ off- du ty. ” T hi s a rgum enti gn ores the defendant s’ “ t i pp i ng sy st em , ” a n in te g r a l p a r t o f

th e c a r r ie r - p a s s e n g e rr e la tio n s h ip th a t e n c o u r a g e d A y d in to s oc i a l i z e w i th a nd e s c or thi s a s s i gne d di nne rpa s s e nge r s w hi l e of f - duty i n the sh ip ’s sc h ed u led p o rt-o f- ca ll . A s d iscu ss ed ab o v e, D o e w as as sig n ed to A yd in ’s d in n er tab le ea ch n ig h t, an d w as p ro v id ed en v elo p es fo r tip p in g A yd in . A yd in ’s49

j ob thus i nvol ve d da i l y i nt e r a c t i on w i th a pa r t i c ul a rs e tof pa s s e nge r s . I nde e d, the defe nd ant s e xp re ss l y per m i tsoci al i za t i on betw ee n cre w m em bers and p as se ng er s o n s h o r e a t th e O a s is . A y d in a d m its th a t h is o f f - d u ty , o n - s h o r e in te r a c tio n w ith h is pass engers enhances hi s t i ps. T o som e e xt ent , defe nd ant s a rguabl y have a pe c uni a r y i nt e r e s ti n of

f - duty c r e w m e m be r s s oc i a l i z i ng w i th a nd e s c or t i ng p assen g ers i n a p o rt -o f-cal l b ecau se i tp ro m o t es th e su ccess o f th e d efen d an t s’ tip p in g s y s te m a s a w a y to p a y A y d in f o rh is s e r v ic e s to th e d e f e n d a n ts . I ti s f ur the rundi s put e d tha ton the ve r y ni ghti n que s t i on A y di n, w hi l e on d u ty an d serv i n g i n h i s ro l e as a crew -m em b er w ai t er, d i rect ed h i s d i n n er g u est pa s s e nge r s t o hi s f

a vor i t e ni ght s pot–the O a s i s –w i thi n a s hor tw a l ki ng di s t a nc e of th e sh i p , an d th atA yd i n w as atth e O asi s w h en D o e arri v ed . A l th o u g h o ff-d u ty, A ydi n adm i t s e sc ort i ng on e of D oe’ s f ri ends back t o t he shi p b ef ore c om i ng back t o the O a s i s a nd the n e s c or t i ng D oe ul t i m a t e l y ba c k t o the s hi p. W hi l e A y di n a nd D oe di sput e w hether he w as t aki ng her ost ensi bl y t o a bathroo m fi rs tor t o t he park for s ex, A ydi n u nd i sput edl y had offe re d t o h el p D oe i n h erdi stre ss . A ydi n even re fe rr ed t o D oe as “ hi s pas se ng er , ” a nd there i s a m pl e e vi dence i n t he re cord that D oe al l ow ed A ydi n t o esc orther onl y bec ause he w as trust ed as her w ai t er -c re w m e m b e ro n th e s h ip . A c c or di ngl y , unde ra l l of the c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e , w e c a nnotc onc l ude50

tha tthe i nt e r a c t i on be tw e e n A y di n a nd D oe i s out s i de the s c ope of the on- goi ng c a r r i e r - pa s s e nge rr e l a t i ons hi p or , a s e xpl a i ne d e a r l i e r , the s c ope of the on- goi ng c rui s e . T hus , w he n c r e w m e m be rA y di n s e xua l l y ba t t e r e d pa s s e nge rD oe , the nondel egabl e dut y ow ed by a c om m on ca rr i ert o p rot ec ti t s pas se ng er s f rom cr ew m e m be ra s s a ul t s dur i ng the c rui s e w a s br e a c he d. 6. F l or i d a L aw W hi l e w e bel i eve thatJopes a nd T ul l i s a re the cont rol l i ng prec edentand t hat w e nee d n otre ac h F l ori da l aw , w e r ec og ni ze thatthe di stri ctcourtprem i se d i t s pre tr i a l rul i ng pa r t l y on F l or i da l a w , w hi c h the de f e nda nt s a r gue w a s e r r one ous . T he de f e nda nt s f ur the ra s s e r ttha tF l or i da de c i s i ons c ontr a di c tthe K e r m a r e c de c i s i on, an d th er ef

o re th e d istrict co u rt sh o u ld n o t h av e r elied o n th em . T h e d istrict co u rt’s order i s a ctual l y uncl ea r bec ause i tfi rs tse em s t o app l y f eder al m ar i t i m e l aw , bu tat th e e n d a p p e a r s to r e ly o n F lo r id a la w f o rits s tr ic t lia b ility ru lin g . N one the l e s s , t o the e xt e ntthe di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on F l or i da l a w , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e r r ora s F l or i da l a w i s e nt i r e l y c ons i s t e ntw i th f e de r a l m a r i t i m e l a w a nd im p o s e s s tr ic t lia b ility o n a c ru is e lin e f o rc r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts o n p a s s e n g e r s . F ore xa m pl e , i n N a de a u v. C os t l e y , 634 S o. 2d 649 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1 9 9 4 ), th e p l ai n t i ff p assen g er su ed th e crew m em b er C o st l ey an d C arn i v al C ru i se L in e s , I n c ., f

o rd a m a g e s f

r o m C o s tle y ’s s e x u a l a s s a u lt o f th e p la in tif

f in h e rr o o m .51

In co n cl u d i n g th atth e p assen g er h ad a cau se o f act i o n ag ai n stth e d efen d an tcru i se l i ne i n t ort(s tri ctvi ca ri ou s l i abi l i ty) and i n con tra ct , the F l ori da appel l at e c ou rt e xpl a i ne d tha t“ F l or i da hol ds a c om m on c a r r i e rr e s pons i bl e f orthe w i l l f

ul m i s c onduc tof

i t s e m pl oy e e s dur i ng the e nt i r e c ontr a c tua l pe r i od, notw i ths t a ndi ng the fa ctthatthe em pl oyee ’ s a ct i on s f al l ou t si de the sc op e of e m pl oym ent . ” I d. at 6 5 2 - 5 3 . I n r e a c h in g th is c o n c lu s io n , th e F lo r id a a p p e lla te c o u r t in N a d e a u a c tu a lly a na l y z e d the r e l e va ntf

e de r a l pr e c e de nt , i nc l udi ng the F i r s tC i r c ui t ’ s M ur a t or e , the N in th C ir c u it’s M o r to n , a n d th e S e c o n d C ir c u it’s R iv e r s . T h e F lo r id a a p p e lla te c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe s a m e s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty pr i nc i pl e “ ha s be e n r e c ogni z e d by f e d e r a l c o u r ts a p p ly in g a d m ir a lty la w .” I d . a t 6 5 2 ( c itin g M u r a to r e a n d M o r to n ) . T he F l or i da a ppe l l a t e c our ti n N a de a u di s c us s e d R i ve r s a nd de t e r m i ne d tha tthe l a ngua ge i n R i ve r s r e qui r i ng ne gl i ge nc e on the pa r tof the c a r r i e rw a s “ di c t a ” a nd w as pres ent ed as partof a j ury i nstruct i on thatthe S ec on d C i rc ui tbel i eved w as “a c tu a lly f

a v o r a b le ” to th e d e f

e n d a n t c o m m o n c a r r ie r . I d . a t 6 5 2 & 6 5 2 n .5 . I n N a d e a u , th e F lo r id a a p p e lla te c o u r t u ltim a te ly c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ a ]t b e s t, a dm i r a l ty c our t s a r e s pl i ton the que s t i on of w he the ri nde pe nde ntne gl i ge nc e on the p a r t o f th e s h ip o w n e ris r e q u ir e d to h o ld th e o w n e rlia b le f o ra n in te n tio n a l a s s a u lt by a c re w m em ber. ” I d. , at65 2-53 . T here fore , the F l ori da courti n N adea u52

de t e r m i ne d ( 1) tha ti tw a s “ f r e e t o a ppl y F l or i da l a w i n the a bs e nc e of c ontr ol l i ng m a r itim e p r e c e d e n t,” ( 2 ) th a t u n d e rF lo r id a la w th e c o m m o n c a r r ie rw a s s tr ic tly lia b le f o rth e a s s a u lt, a n d ( 3 ) th a t “a p p ly in g F lo r id a la w to th e in s ta n t f a c ts w o u ld i n no w a y a l t e rthe uni f

or m i ty of a dm i r a l ty de c i s i ons . ” I d. O the rF l or i da a ppe l l a t e de c i s i ons a ppl y the s a m e s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty rul e f or e m p lo y e e a s s a u lts in c o m m o n c a r r ie r - p a s s e n g e rc a s e s . S e e , e .g ., P e lo t v . A tla n tic C oa s tR . C o. , 53 S o. 937, 938 ( F l a . 1910) ( tr a i n c a s e ) ; N a z a r e th v. H e r ndon A m bul a nc e S e r v. , I nc . , 467 S o. 2d 1076, 1078- 79 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1985) ( a m b u la n c e c o m m o n c a r r ie rc a s e ) ; C o m m o d o r e C ru is e L in e s , L td . v . K o r m e n d i, 34 4 S o. 2d 89 6 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 77 ) ( crui se l i ne ca se ). D e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t tw o F lo r id a c a s e s u n d e r m in e F lo r id a ’s s tr ic t lia b ility ru le , c itin g R in d f

le is c h v . C a r n iv a l C ru is e L in e s , I n c ., 4 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 ( F la . D is t. C t . A pp . 19 86 ), and R i dd l e v. A er o M ay fl ow erT ra nsi tC o. , 73 S o. 2d 71 (F l a. 19 54 ). T hi s a rgum enti s unavai l i ng . In R i nd fl ei sc h, the part i es agre ed thatfe dera l m a r i t i m e l a w c ontr ol l e d, a nd thus the F l or i da a ppe l l a t e c our tdi d nota ppl y F l or i da la w a t a ll. F u r th e r , R in d f le is c h w a s a s lip - a n d - f

a ll c a s e , a n d th e F lo r id a a p p e lla te c our tc or r e c t l y a ppl i e d K e r m a r e c ’ s r e a s ona bl e c a r e s t a nda r d. R i ndf l e i s c h, 498 S o. 2d at49 0-91 . In addi t i on , the F l ori da appel l at e c ou rti n N adea u d i st i ng ui shed R i nd fl ei sc h and appl i ed F l ori da l aw and a stri ctl i abi l i ty s t andard i n a cr ew m em ber53

as sa ul tca se . N adea u, 63 4 S o. 2d at65 1 n . 3 & 65 2. T hu s, w e c on cl ud e that N a d e a u is m o r e d ir e c tly o n p o in t. A s to th e s ec o n d ca se , w h il e R id d le d id in v o lv e F lo rid a law , i t co n ce rn ed “a c om m on c a r r i e ri n m ovi ng hous e hol d goods , ” a nd the a s s a ul toc c ur r e d i n the pl a i nt i f f’ s hom e . 73 S o. 2d a t71. A c c or di ngl y , R i ndf l e i s c h a nd R i ddl e do not al t erou r c on cl usi on (1) thatF l ori da t ortl aw i m po se s s tri ctl i abi l i ty on crui se l i nes f o rc r e w m e m b e ra s s a u lts o n th e irp a s s e n g e r s , ( 2 ) th a t a s to th is is s u e F lo r id a la w is consi st entw i th federa l m ar i t i m e t ortl aw , and (3) thatt o t he ext entthe di stri ctcourt appl i ed F l ori da l aw there i s no rever si bl e e rr or i n t hi s c as e. D . S exu al A ss au l t V er d i ct A s s ta te d ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e lia b le for J ane D oe’ s i nj uri es i f A ydi n com m i t t ed ei ther a se xu al as sa ul tor a s exual bat t ery. A l so, as ou t l i ned abo ve, the j ury c on cl ud ed thatA ydi n com m i t t ed a s exual bat t ery, bu tno ta s exual as sa ul t , on D oe. T o the e xt e ntthe de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tthe r e i s s om e c onf l i c tbe tw e e n the j ury’ s ver di ct s, w e c on cl ud e thatno confl i ctexi st ed betw ee n a fi nd i ng that , as in s tru c te d , A y d in c o m m itte d a s e x u a l b a tte r y , b u t n o t a s e x u a l a s s a u lt. A s d e s c r ib e d e a r lie r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju r y th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts w ere stri ct l y l i ab l e i f D o e p ro v ed sex u al b at t ery as fo l l o w s:54 S exu al B atte ry O n P l ai nt i ff’ s c l ai m for s exual bat t ery, D ef enda n ts . . . ar e s tr i c t l y l i abl e t o P l a i nt i f f f ors e xua l ba t t e r y i f

P l a i nt i f f s how s , by the gr e a t e rw e i ghtof

the e vi de nc e , the f

ol l ow i ng: T hatB ar i s A ydi n, w ith h i s s exual organ, penetra t ed or had uni on w i th the va gi na of P l a i nt i f f ; a nd T hatac tw as do ne w i tho utthe consentof P l ai nt i ff . (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T here fore , t o p rove se xu al bat t ery, D oe had t o p rove on l y that A y di n ha d s e xua l i nt e r c our s e w i th he r( a f a c ttha tw a s noti n di s put e ) a nd tha ts he di d notc ons e ntt o the s e xua l i nt e r c our s e ; tha ti s , i f D oe di d notc ons e ntt o the s e xua l i nt e r c our s e , A y di n w a s gui l ty of s e xua l ba t t e r y . S e e F l a . S t a t . c h. 79 4. 01 1(1)(h) & (5). In cont ra st , as t o t he se xu al as sa ul t , the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury a s fo l l o w s: S e x u a l A s s a u lt

O n P l ai nt i ff’ s c l ai m for s exual a ss aul t , D ef endant s . . . ar e stri ct l y l i abl e f

or se xu al as sa ul ti f P l ai nt i ff show s, by the great er w ei gh tof the evi dence, ei ther: a ) T ha tB a r i s A y di n i nt e nde d t o c om m i ta sex u al ba t t e r y on the pe r s on of

P l a i nt i f f ; a nd tha tthe a t t e m pt e d a c tw a s do n e w i t houtthe c ons e ntof

P l a i nt i f f ; or b) T hatB ar i s A ydi n i nt ended t o cause P lain ti ff t o fea r a n i m m e di a t e s e xua l ba t t e r y orrape ; a nd tha tthe a t t e m pt e d a c tw a s done w i tho utthe consentof P l ai nt i ff . ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T hus , a s c ha r ge d, a j ur y w oul d ha ve t o c onc l ude tha tA y di n: ( 1)Aydin testified at some length about the sexual encounter . Specifically , he testified 31 th at , “I was s t i l lt o u ch i n g h er b o dy , v agi n a, an d

Iwe ntt o ki s s h er

aga i n , we we re s t i l lki s s i n g, and then I put my penis into her vag ina.” 55 i nt e nde d t o c om m i ta s e xua l ba t t e r y a nd tha tthe “ a t t e m pt e d a c t ” w a s done w i thout D oe ’ s c ons e nt ; or( 2) i nt e nde d t o c a us e D oe t o f e a ra n i m m e di a t e s e xua l ba t t e r y or r a p e a n d th a t th e “a tte m p te d a c t” w a s d o n e w ith o u t D o e ’s c o n s e n t. W e r e a d ily concl ud e thatthe se xu al bat t ery a nd se xu al as sa ul tchar ges, and t he j ury’ s ver di ct a s to th e s e c h a r g e s , a r e in n o w a y in c o n s is te n t. F i rs t , a j ury c ou l d rea sonabl y have c on cl ud ed thatse xu al as sa ul tchar ges w ere i n ap p l i cab l e b ecau se i tw as u n d i sp u t ed th atA yd i n h ad sex u al i n t erco u rse w i th D oe , a nd, the r e f

or e , the r e w a s no “ a t t e m pt e d a c t , ” onl y the c om pl e t e d a c tof s e x u a l in te r c o u r s e . F u r th e r m o r e , th e ju r y c o u ld h a v e v ie w e d th e “a tte m p te d a c t” 31 l a ngua ge a s ne c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d t o the “ i nt e nde d a c t s ” i m m e di a t e l y pr e c e di ng i n the c ha r ge ; tha ti s , A y di n w a s notgui l ty of s e xua l a s s a ul tbe c a us e he di d nota t t e m pt t o: ( 1) c om m i ta s e xua l ba t t e r y ( he i n f a c tdi d c om m i ta s e xua l ba t t e r y ) ; or( 2) ca use D oe t o fea r a se xu al bat t ery or r ape. F ur the r m or e , the j ur y c ha r ge s f ors e xua l ba t t e r y a nd s e xua l a s s a ul tc ont a i n a si m pl e, ob vi ou s di ff

er ence , and, there fore , ar e noti ncon si st ent . T he se xu al bat t ery c h a r g e d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t A y d in “in te n d e d ” to e n g a g e in c r im in a l c o n d u c t, w h e r e a s , th e s e x u a l a s s a u lt c h a r g e r e q u ir e s th a t A y d in h a v e th e s p e c if ic in te n t toUn de r F lorida law, therearese ve ral ty

pe s o f s e xua l ba

ttery . F or thepurp os e s o f t

his 32 casewe a re c oncer ned with sexual battery

define d as the “ oral, a

nal, or vag inal penetration by , or un ion wi th, these xua l org an o f a no ther. . . .”F la . St at. c h. 79 4. 01 1( 1) (h), and “ wi tho ut [D oe ’s ] consent . . . .”Fla. Stat. ch. 794.011( 5). 56 e n g a g e in c r im in a l c o n d u c t. T he defendant s s ei ze on thi s l as tdi ff er ence and argue t hatbeca use s exual bat t ery does nothave, as an el em ent , any s peci fi c i nt entt o eng age i n cri m i nal c onduc ti ts houl d notbe c ons i de r e d a n i nt e nt i ona l t or t . T he r e f or e , a c c or di ng t o the defe nd ant s’ ar gu m ent , stri ctl i abi l i ty i s onl y f or i nt ent i on al t ort s a nd thu s they s h o u ld n o t b e h e ld s tr ic tly lia b le f o rA y d in ’s a c tio n s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts ’ a r g u m e n t is fl aw ed fo r sev eral reaso n s. F irst, th e d istrict co u rt’s se x u al b attery ch ar g e w as co n sisten t w ith F lo rid a’s c r im in a l s ta tu te d e f

in in g s e x u a l b a tte r y a n d F lo r id a P a tte r n J u r y I n s tru c tio n 1 1 .4 , in th a t it r e q u ir e d a s h o w in g o f o n ly ( 1 ) s e x u a l p e n e tr a tio n a n d ( 2 ) a la c k o f c o n s e n t. 32 F urtherm ore, un der F l ori da l aw , se xu al bat t ery i s a general i nt entcr i m e a nd do es notr e qui r e tha ta de f

e nda nta c tw i th s pe c i f

i c i nt e nt . S e e C ol e rv. S t a t e , 418 S o. 2d 23 8, 23 9 (F l a. 19 82 ) ( “ S t at e of m i nd i s nota m at er i al fa cti n a se xu al bat t ery c h a r g e , n o ris in te n t a n is s u e .” ) ; K illia n v . S ta te , 7 3 0 S o .2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 2 ( F la . D is t. C t. A pp . 19 99 ); Ja ckson v . S t at e, 64 0 S o. 2d 11 73 , 11 74 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 94 ); se e a ls o A s k e w v . S ta te , 1 1 8 S o .2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 ( F la . 1 9 6 0 ) . A lth o u g h th e d e f e n d a n ts c or r e c t l y poi ntouttha ts pe c i f i c i nt e nti s notr e qui r e d unde rs e xua l ba t t e r y , the57

defe nd ant s i ncorrec t l y c on cl ud e thatthi s m ea ns thatse xu al bat t ery i s notan in te n tio n a l to r t. F l or i da l a w e qua t e s s e xua l ba t t e r y w i th a n i nt e nt i ona l t or t . S e e D oe v. Y o u n g , 6 5 6 So . 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 ( Fl a . D i s t . Ct . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( d e s c r i b i n g p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms a s “ the i nt e nt i ona l t or t s of ba t t e r y a nd s e xua l ba t t e r y ” ) ; s e e a l s o D oe v. E va ns , 814 S o. 2d 370, 380 ( F l a . 2002) ( J . , W e l l s , di s s e nt i ng) ( “ I m por t a nt l y , the r e a r e no al l egat i on s thatthe al l eged cond uctre sul t ed i n any ph ys i ca l i nj ury or thatan i nt e nt i ona l t or ts uc h a s s e xua l ba t t e r y oc c ur r e d” ) ; S c ot tv. O t i s E l e va t orC o. , 572 S o. 2d 902, 903 ( F l a . 1990) ( “ T hi s c onc l us i on i s s uppor t e d by the de f i ni t i on of the in te n t n e c e s s a r y to e s ta b lis h a n in te n tio n a l to r t. T h e in te n t w ith w h ic h to r t lia b ility i s c onc e r ne d i s a n i nt e ntt o br i ng a bouta r e s ul tw hi c h w i l l i nva de the i nt e r e s t s of a n o th e rin a w a y th a t th e la w f o rb id s .” ) ( in te r n a l p u n c tu a tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . F u r th e r m o r e , a n in te n tio n a l to r t is “[ a ] to r t c o m m itte d b y s o m e o n e a c tin g w ith ge ne r a l ors pe c i f

i c i nt e nt[ a nd] [ e ] xa m pl e s i nc l ude ba t t e r y , f a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd tre spas s t o l and. ” B l ac k’ s L aw D i ct i on ary a t15 27 (8th E d. 19 99 ). S e c ond, the de f

e nda ntdr a w s the w r ong di s t i nc t i on. T he di s t i nc t i on i s not b etw een th o se t o rt s th ath av e so m e o v ertreq u i rem en to f sp eci fi c i n t en tan d th o se t or t s tha tdo not . R a the r , the pr ope rdi s t i nc t i on i s be tw e e n i nt e nt i ona l t or t s a nd thos e t or t s ba s e d on ne gl i ge nc e . S e e C i ty of M i a m i v. S a nde r s , 672 S o. 2d 46, 47Def endants did not appe al the denial of their motion for re mitti tur, but do appeal the 33 denial of the ir motion for new trial, which was premised on er roneous e videntiary

ruling s. On appeal, the defendants ac knowledg e that the district cour t denied their motion for new trial as moot but defenda

nts request that, if weset aside the Rule 50(b) motion granted in their f avor, w e then dec ide whether the e videntiary ruling s warrant a new trial. Thus, wewill review f or an abuse of discretion the district cour t’s evidentiar

y ruling s and denial of a motion for a new trial. Middlebroo ks v. Hi llc re st F oo ds , Inc ., 25 6 F .3 d 1 24 1, 12 47 -4 8 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 1) . T hede fend ants 58 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1996) ( “ A n a s s a ul ta nd ba t t e r y i s notne gl i ge nc e f ors uc h a c t i on i s i nt e nt i ona l , w hi l e ne gl i ge nc e c onnot e s a n uni nt e nt i ona l a c t . ” ) ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i t t e d) ; S l a w s on v. F a s tF ood E nt e r s . , 671 S o. 2d 255, 258 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1996) ( “ [ T ] he ki nd of

ha r m s oughtt o be a voi de d w a s a n i nt e nt i ona l a s s a ul t , the o ld e s t in te n tio n a l to r t.” ) ; s e e a ls o S t. J o h n v . C o is m a n , 7 9 9 S o .2 d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 5 n .5 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( S a w a y a , J ., c o n c u r r in g in p a r t, d is s e n tin g in p a r t) ( “ A s s a ul ta nd ba t t e r y a r e i nt e nt i ona l t or t s a s oppos e d t o t or t s ba s e d on negl i gence. ”) . F or al l the abov e r ea sons, i ti s c l ea r thatse xu al bat t ery i s a n in te n tio n a l to r t. F i nal l y, even as sum i ng ar gu endo thatse xu al bat t ery w as no tconsi dere d an in te n tio n a l to r t, th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ a r g u m e n ts s till la c k m e r it; th a t is , if a c ru is e s h ip ca n b e hel d stri ct l y l i abl e f or i t s c re w m em bers ’ i nt ent i on al t ort s, a c rui se shi p can ce rt ai nl y be hel d stri ct l y l i abl e f or ot her, l es se r f

orm s of c re w m em ber s exual as sa ul t s on p as se ng er s. W e r ea di l y c on cl ud e thata s exual bat t ery by a cr ew m em b er i s w i th i n th atcl ass o f crew m em b er assau l t s fo r w h i ch a sh i p , as a com m on ca rr i er , i s s tri ct l y l i abl e t o a pass enger. 33argue that they areentitled to a new trial beca use the district cour

t erre d by (1) not per

mitti ngthe defendants to “truthfully

disclos[ e] the judicial position, t itle and bac kground” of the B ermudian ma g istratewh o h e ard

thec ri min a l c a sein B e rm ud a and a pp e are d a s a

de fens ewi tne ss a

t tria l; (2) precludingdefendants “from apprizing the jury of the outcomeof the B ermuda court proce eding s”; and (3) “allowingDoe to we ar her military uniform duringtrial.” Af ter review, we c onclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion in these r ulings duringtrial, and de fend ants areno t e nti tle d to a ne w tri a l. 59 V I . CONCL US I ON F orthe a bove r e a s ons , w e R E V E R S E the e ntr y of j udgm e ntf

orthe d e f e n d a n ts b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d a u th o r ity to e n te rju d g m e n t u n d e rR u le 5 0 ( b ) o n a n e w g r o u n d n o t r a is e d b y a n y p a r ty p r io rto s u b m is s io n o f th e c a s e to the j ur y . W e f

ur the rr e i ns t a t e a nd A F F I R M the j ur y ’ s ve r di c tf orthe pl a i nt i f

f a nd R E M A N D the ca se t o t he di stri ctcourtt o ent erfi nal j ud gm enton the j ury’ s ver di ct fo r th e p l ai n t i ff an d ag ai n stth e d efen d an t s.