Source: https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/cruise-ship-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:45:40+00:00

Document:
It is estimated that more than nine million passengers travel on pleasure cruises departing North American ports each year. While this number has increased significantly in just the past five years, the safety aboard these ships has not correspondingly increased. Claims of injuries, assaults by crew members, and violent illnesses have become seemingly commonplace. Recently, with the publicity surrounding a string of disappearances aboard cruise ships, the cruise line industry has come under heightened scrutiny. For those who litigate cruise line cases, these shocking stories and tragic results come as no surprise.
That being said, the ability to recover from the negligence involving cruise ships is not impenetrable. Several American courts, realizing the impracticality and injustice resulting from the current state of affairs, have handed down landmark decisions regarding the accountability of cruise ship corporations to their passengers. This article will provide a brief overview of the current state of personal injury law relating to cruise ship passengers, an examination of the procedural pitfalls, customary cruise contract limitations on rights and remedies, recent statutory interpretations, and promising verdicts.
Another procedural pitfall concerns forum selection clauses. These provisions, also contained in the ticket package, dictate where a lawsuit may be filed against the cruise line. It does not matter where the passenger is from, or where the cruise departed. Currently, cruise lines have limited the location where claims may be brought to a handful of cities where larger ports are located, such as Miami, Seattle and Los Angeles.
In addition to forum selection clauses, passenger tickets may also designate the law to be applied in resolving any issue which may arise. The law applied to a claim can have a dramatic influence on the likelihood of recovering adequate damages. Generally choice of law clauses have been held enforceable, unless a passenger can demonstrate that enforcement would be unreasonable, to prevent fraud or overreaching,19 or if “enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought.”20 Courts may consider several factors in determining whether choice of law clauses should be enforced such as, the place of the wrongful act, the law of the flag, the allegiance or domicile of the injured passenger, the allegiance of the ship owner, the place of the contract, the inaccessibility of the foreign forum, and the law of the forum.21 One caveat: a practitioner should not automatically assume that United States law always favors the plaintiff. With the demise of nonpecuniary damages in maritime death cases, there may be cases where foreign law provides more favorable remedies than United States law.
As a cruise ship litigator, you should be aware of the jurisdictional issues involved when initiating a lawsuit against a carrier. In order to sue a cruise line locally, the consumer’s court must have jurisdiction.
Specifically, in Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines30. a case involving malfunctioning toilets, the cruise line sought to enforce a clause in the passenger contract disclaiming liability for the discomfort of passengers.
In the United States, claims for personal injuries and deaths that occur on or near navigable waters generally fall within a court’s admiralty jurisdiction and require the application of substantive maritime law, which is federal law. In order to successfully handle cruise ship injury or death cases governed by United States federal maritime law, an understanding of the relevant federal statutes and regulations is first required. The United States Congress addressed maritime wrongful death remedies in 1920 when it passed the Jones Act36, which governs the right of recovery for crew members, and enacted the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), which provides a wrongful death remedy limited to pecuniary damages for fatalities on the high seas.
Under federal maritime law, ship-owners are most often not vicariously liable for the negligence of the ships’ doctors in treating passengers.61 In recent years, federal and state courts have revisited this draconian rule and twice found that a carrier may be liable for negligent treatment rendered by its on-board doctor. The most recent cases finding carriers liable for the negligence of shipboard doctors are the now overturned Florida state court decision of Carlisle v. Carnival Corp,62 followed by the Illinois state court decision of Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. 63 These cases are the first since the 1959 decision of Nietes v. American President Lines, Ltd.64 to hold that a passenger injured by the negligent treatment of a cruise line’s on-board physician can maintain a vicarious liability cause of action against the cruise line. In 2007 the Carlisle decision was unfortunately overturned on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court reasons that the many years of precedent should not be overturned. 65 This leaves only the Illinois case of Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 66 In Mack the court stated: “While we acknowledge that we are bound by federal statute to follow federal maritime law in this matter (see U.S.C. § 1333(1) (2004); Offshore Logistics, Inc., 477 U.S. at 222-23 [91 L. Ed. 2d at 189-90]), Nietes and the federal cases that have followed its reasoning and holding indicate that the question of whether a vicarious liability claim against a ship-owner for the negligent treatment by its on-board doctor will stand under maritime law is not settled at this time.
A promising federal decision out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is Doonan v. Carnival Corporation69. In this opinion, a cause of action for vicarious liability alleging an apparent agency theory of recovery was not dismissed. The court stated: “Apparent agency can be established despite the majority ruling of Barbetta. See Fairley, 1933 A.M.C. at 1639-40. 70” Florida courts have cited Doonan as making it “permissible for a court sitting in Admiralty, to hear vicarious liability claims premised upon the theory of apparent agency. 71” In other words, despite Barbetta a plaintiff may be able to sustain an apparent agency claim against a cruise line for the medical malpractice of the carrier’s on-board physician.
Cruise line litigation should not be attempted without a thorough understanding of cruise ship law, especially since many areas of maritime law are now in flux and merit careful attention. Issues such as procedural concerns, contract exclusions, statutory schemes, and recent court decisions are continually and rapidly evolving in the area of cruise ship law. Hopefully this article has provided a comprehensive preview into many of the cruise ship litigation concerns and complexities and will aid the practitioner in clearing the murky waters surrounding these floating cities.
Ira Leesfield is the senior and managing partner of Leesfield & Partners, P.A., with offices in Miami, Key West, South Beach and Winter Park, Florida. He is board certified by the National Board of Trial Advocates; a past President of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers; an EAGLE Patron; and served over 20 years as Senior Florida Governor of the American Association for Justice. He is the recipient of many awards including the Anti-Defamation League’s “2001 Jurisprudence Award; Florida Region of American ORT’s “American ORT Jurisprudence Award”; the “2002 Melvin Belli Award”; Al J. Cone Lifetime Achievement Award, among many others. He is Immediate past president of the Melvin M. Belli Society. Visit his Web site: www.Leesfield.com.
1 See Hughes v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 2003 WL 1740460, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003) (one-year time limitation period enforced); Angel v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2002 WL 31553524, at *1, *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2002) (passenger fell overboard; one-year time limitation enforced); Konikoff v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14034, at *6 (D.V.I. Aug. 13, 2001) (passenger sustained injury exiting taxi during shore excursion; claim dismissed as untimely); Stone v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 2001 WL 877580, at *1-*2 (E.D. Pa. May 15, 2001) (slip and fall in bathroom; time limitations period enforced); Wall v. Mikeralph Travel, Inc., 2003 WL 178770, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2003) (time limitations period enforced; “The fact that the ticket-contract, while never reaching the [passenger], resided with the travel agency...employed to purchase the ticket, inclines one to conclude that the opportunity to discover these restrictions existed for a significant period of time”); Tateosian v. Celebrity Cruise Servs., Ltd., 768 A.2d 1248, 1252 (R.I. 2001) (food poisoning; one year time limitation period enforced); Reeser v. NCL Bahamas Ltd., Civil Action No. 05-2344, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17159 (E.D. Pa. August 17, 2005) (injured cruise lines passengers’ claims dismissed as time barred for failing to file suit within one year despite cruise line’s failure to inform plaintiff’s lawyer of such provision while communicating with the lawyer during limitations period); Levick v. Steiner Transocean Limited, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14770 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2005) (one year passenger ticket limitation to file suit applied to claims against independent contractor who ran the spa on the ship, and filing suit in state court did not toll the time period to file suit in federal court).
2 Ward v. Cross Sound Ferry, 273 F.3d 520, 526 (2d Cir. 2001) (slip and fall on gangway; one-year time limitations clause not enforced; passenger receiving ticket two minutes before boarding did not have proper notice of time limitations clause).
3 Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 314 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2002) (minor burned feet on hot deck surface; one-year time limitations period tolled for minor until after parent began to serve as guardian ad litem after filing of lawsuit).
4 Dillon v. Admiral Cruises, Inc., 960 F.2d 743, 746 (8th Cir. 1992) (trip and fall in ship’s lounge; cruise line may be estopped from relying on one-year time limitation).
5 See Long v. Holland Am. Line Westours, 26 P.3d 430, 436 (Alaska 2001).
6 Rams v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc., 17 F.3d 11, 13 (1st Cir. 1994) (one-year time limitation does not apply to accidents during shore excursions).
7 Berg v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 810-12 (D.N.J. 1994) (passenger misled into not filing lawsuit within one year).
8 Insogna v. Princess Cruises, Inc., N.Y.L.J., June 10, 2002, at 37; Cronin v. Cunard Line, 672 N.Y.S. 2d 864, 864-65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (deceptive port charges; six-month time limitation in which to commence lawsuit enforced).
9 Barton v. Princess Cruises, Inc., No. B123107, 2002 WL 31677178, at *7 (Cal.App. Nov. 27, 2002) (deceptive port charges; clause in passenger ticket requiring the filing of written notice of claims within fifteen days and the filing of a lawsuit within ninety days may be unenforceable).
10 Johnson v. Commodore Cruise Line Ltd., 897 F. Supp. 740, 744-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (passenger raped by crew member; claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress governed by Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations; passenger ticket time limitations of fifteen days to file claim and six months to sue for nonphysical claims void).
11 See Important Notices to Guests; Important Terms and Conditions of Contract, available at http://www.carnival.com/CMS/Static_Templates/ticket_contract.aspx (last visited January 23, 2006).
12 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18235.
13 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6811.
14 Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 141 Idaho 290 (2005); Hellman v. Royal Caribbean International, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14177.
16 See id.; Cismaru v. Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, Inc., No. Civ. A. 07-00-00100-CV, 2001 WL 6546, at *1 (Tex. App. Jan. 2, 2001); Stobaugh v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd., 5 S.W. 3d 232, 235 (Tex. App. 1999).
17 See Ward v. Cross Sound Ferry, 273 F.3d 520, 525 (2d Cir. 2001).
18 Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 785 (2005).
19 See Long v. Holland Am. Line Westours, Inc., 26 P.3d 430 (Alaska 2001) (passenger fell during land tour of museum; maritime law does not govern land tour; choice of law clause in tour contract stating that “except when maritime law applied, the contract would be construed according to Washington state law” was rejected and the law of Alaska applied.
20 Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, SPA, 954 F.2d 763, 768 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
21 See Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 795 F. Supp. 112, 115-16 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
22 See Benson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 859 So.2d 1213 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003) (physician was subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida under Florida’s long-arm statute for wrongful death action because cruise ship was within Florida territorial boundaries); Pota v. Holtz, 852 So.2d 379, 381 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003)(pregnant passenger complaining of stomach cramps misdiagnosed as having bladder infection goes into contractions and bleeding and cruise line denies request for airlift to hospital in Grand Cayman Island; passenger taken to hospital only after ship docks, gives birth and baby dies a few hours later; jurisdiction over ship’s doctor onboard a ship docked in Florida port); Rana v. Flynn, 823 So.2d 302, 303 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002)(passenger suffered heart attack and was treated by ship’s doctor as cruise ship sailed into Florida waters and docked in the port of Miami; jurisdiction over ship’s doctor found).
23 Dickerson, Thomas A., The Cruise Passenger’s Dilemma: 21st Century Ships, Nineteenth Century Rights. 28 Tul. Mar. L.J. 447 at 482.
24 See Falcone v. Mediterranean Shipping Co., Civil Action No. 01-3918, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2002) (passenger suffered physical injury aboard cruise ship; no jurisdiction based upon sales by local travel agent “with no authority to confirm reservations”); Kauffman v. Ocean Spirit Shipping, Ltd., 1993 AMC 177, 180 (Mich. 1990)(dissemination of cruise brochures through travel agents and advertising in scuba magazine insufficient to support long arm jurisdiction); Duffy v. Grand Circle Travel, Inc., 756 N.Y.S. 2d 176, 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) (passenger sustained injury in France; no jurisdiction over Massachusetts cruise company); Sanderman v. Costa Cruises, Inc., 55 Pa. D & C. 4th 328, 333 (Pa. C.P. 2001)(consumer paid Florida travel agent $21,775 for cruise on Costa Romantica that failed to remit any money to cruise line; no jurisdiction over cruise line not doing business in Pennsylvania).
26 Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1334 (11th Cir. 1984).
27 See Royal Ins. Co. Of Am. v. Southwest Marine, 194 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 1999).
28 See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Reading, 674 A.2d 44 (Md.App. 1996); Bellocchio v. Italia Flotte Riunite Cosulich Line, 84 F.2d 975 (2d Cir. 1936). Tullis v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 397 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1968); Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen & Co., 259 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1958); Goode v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 251 F. 556 (2d Cir. 1918); see also, White v. United States of America 53 F.3d 43 (4th Cir. 1995), Florida Fuels, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 6 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1993) and Romero Reyes v. Marine Enterprises, Inc. 494 F.2d 866 (1974); Russell v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 539 F.2d 1318 (4th Cir. 1976); Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantic, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct 406 (1959); Marshall v. Westfal-Larsen Co., 259 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1958); Meyers v. M/V Eugenio C, 842 F. 2d 815 (5th Cir. 1988); Urian v. Milstead, 473 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1973).
29 See Liverpool & Great W. Steam Co. v. Phoenix Ins., 129 U.S. 397, 441 (1889).
30 741 F.2d 1332, 1985 AMC 826 (11th Cir. 1984).
31 Id. at 1335, 1985 AMC at 828.
32 See Henderson v. Carnival Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (passenger injured on catamaran trip while on excursion from cruise; notwithstanding Carnival logo on catamaran and crew member shirts, cruise ship disclaimer of ownership or control of catamaran company enforced); Mashburn v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (day trip to Coco Cay Island owned by cruise line; passengers rented Sea-Doo, signed waiver and were injured in accident; no negligence found); Dubret v. Holland Am. Line Westours, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1153 (W.D. Wash. 1998) (bus accident during shore excursion; disclaimer of liability enforced).
33 Hernandez v. Holiday Inn, N.Y.L.J., Mar. 23, 1993, at 21.
34 Winter v. I.C. Holidays, Inc., N.Y.L.J., Jan. 9, 1992, at 23 (holding that tour operator has duty to select responsible independent contractors).
35 See Berzonzine v. Maui Classic Charters, 1995 AMC 2628 (D. Haw. 1995) (350-pound handicapped passenger broke ankle because of inattention and lack of assistance by crew; misrepresentations in brochure that cruises were “suitable for handicapped individuals”; $42,500 in special damages awarded); Sharpe v. W. Indian Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 646, 652 (D.V.I. 2000) (passenger left cruise ship to board waiting tour bus and was struck by failing railing; time limitations in cruise contract enforced as against cruise ship and clause that stated, “the exclusions or limitations of liability of carrier set forth in the provisions of this contract shall also apply to and be for the benefit of agents, independent contractors, concessionaires and suppliers of carrier as well as owners and operators of all shoreside properties at which the vessel may call” was unenforceable against dock operators and local truck company responsible for accident).
36 Act of June 5, 1920, ch. 250, 41 Stat. 988 (codified at 46 U.S.C. app. §688 (2000)).
37 Moyer v. Klosters Rederi, 645 F. Supp. 620, 1987 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
38 Kunreuther v. Outboard Marine Corp., 757 F. Supp. 633, (E.D. Pa 1991).
39 Howard v. Crystal Cruises Inc., 41 F.3d 527, (9th Cir. 1994).
40 46 App. U.S.C.A. § 762.
41 Dooley v. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd., 524 U.S. 116 (1998).
42 In Re Korean Airlines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 117 F.3d 1477 (D.C. Circuit 1997), aff’d, 524 U.S. 116 (1998).
43 Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970).
44 41 F.3d 527, 1995 A.M.C. 305 (9th Cir. 1994).
46 210 F.3d 565, 2000 A.M.C. 1521 (5th Cir. 2000).
47 Motts, 210 F.3d at 569.
48 Id. at 569-70 (quoting Smith, 684 F.2d at 1111).
51 Motts, 210 F.3d at 571-72 (footnote omitted).
52 516 U.S. 199, 206-07, (1996).
55 In re Horizon Cruises Litigation, 101 F. Supp. 2d 204, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(quoting Gravatt v. City of New York, 53 F. Supp. 2d 388, 427-29 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).
56 In re Plaquemine Towing Corp., 190 F. Supp. 2d 889, 892-94 (M.D. La. 2002).
58 Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, 848 F.2d 1364, 1371 (5th Cir. 1988); The Great Northern, 251 F. 826, 830-32 (9th Cir. 1918); Di Bonaventure v. Home Lines, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 100, 103-04 (E.D. Penn. 1982); Cimini v. Italia Crociere Int’l S.P.A., 1981 AMC 2674, 2677 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Amdur v. Zim Israel Navigation Co., 310 F.Supp. 1033, 1042-43 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
59 Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, 848 F.2d 1364, 1371 (5th Cir. 1988).
60 See Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1372; Cummiskey v. Chandris, 895 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir. 1990); Nanz v. Costa Cruises, Inc., (S.D. Fla. 1991), aff’d 932 F.2d 977 (11th Cir. 1992); Jane Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 13454-46 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Gillmor v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Ltd., 789 F. Supp. 488, 491 (D.P.R. 1992); Hilliard v. Kloster Cruise, Ltd., 1991 AMC 314, 316-17 (E.D. Va. 1990); Mascolo v. Costa Crociere, 726 F. Supp. 1285, 1286 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
62 Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So.2d 1 (Fla. DCA 2003).
63 Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 838 N.E. 2d 80 (Ill. App. 2005).
64 188 F. Supp. 219, 221 (N.D. Cal. 1959).
65 Carnival Corp. v. Carlisle, 953 So. 2d 461, 470 (Fla. 2007)(“this Court and the Florida district courts of appeal must adhere to the federal principles of harmony and uniformity when applying federal maritime law. At the time the instant case was decided by the Third District, with the exception of Nietes, the federal maritime law uniformly held that a ship owner is not vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the shipboard physician”).
66 Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 838 N.E. 2d 80 (Ill. App. 2005).
67 Huntley v. Carnival Corp., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
68 Mack v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 838 N.E. 2d 80 (Ill. App. 2005).
69 Doonan v. Carnival Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (D. Fla. 2005).
71 Hajtman v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (D. Fla. 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1333
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §688
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 762
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.