DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT DEFENDANT SPA CONCESSIONAIRE STEINER TRANSOCEAN WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE UNDER UNSEAWORTHINESS CLAIM BY JONES ACT SEAFARER BECAUSE CONTROL OVER THE SPA AREA ONLY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A DEMISE CHARTER.
LE TRAN, Plaintiff, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC. and Steiner Transocean Limited, Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
No. 12-24017-CIV. May 23, 2013.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff seafaerer filed suit for a contracted illness while working aboard a Celebrity vessel. Defendant spa concessionaire Steiner Transocean Limited moved to dismiss claim of unseaworthiness.
OVERVIEW:
Plaintiff Tran worked aboard the vessel M/S Celebrity Summit as an employee of Defendant Steiner. Tran worked in the spa center operated by Steiner. Plaintiff contracted scabies and suffered symptoms of appendicitis while aboard the ship. Plaintiff alleged that the illness stemmed from an unreasonable unsafe working environment and that the Defendants failed to identify and adequately treat her ailments. Plaintiff filed claims under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness. Plaintiff argued Steiner was a demise charterer with operational control over the section of the ship where she was injured and thus had the absolute nondelegable duty to provide her with a seaworthy vessel. Court rejected this argument because in the absence of writing, a demise charter requires showing essentially a change in ownership, a complete relinquishment of possession command and navigation. The Court concluded that Steiner’s alleged control over a section of the Celebrity Summit did not constitute a demise charter. Thus, the court dismissed the unseaworthiness count against Steiner.
OUTCOME:
Court granted the Motion to Dismiss the unseaworthiness count.
————————————–//—————————————-
MOTION TO DISMISS WAS DENIED IN CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER’S SINGLE COUNT NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT BASED ON A SLIP AND FALL INCIDENT WHERE COURT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF NOTICE WERE ADEQUATELY PLED.
Sandra CALDWELL, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
No. 12-24086-Civ. | May 2, 2013.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Passenger on cruise ship who allegedly slipped and fell on walkway between the ship and a port filed personal injury suit against owner of cruise line. Defendant moved to dismiss.
OVERVIEW:
On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff, Sandra Caldwell, filed a one-count Complaint alleging that Defendant’s negligence caused her to slip and fall while she was a passenger on the Legend, a vessel owned and operated by Defendant. On the day of the incident, Legend was at port in Roatan, Honduras. Defendant constructed and owned the port, which it named Mahogany Bay, to serve as an element of the cruise experience. Mahogany Bay is an isolated property, not within walking distance of any other activities in Roatan, and is comprised of shops owned by or on behalf of Defendant. The only means of entering or exiting Mahogany Bay from the vessel is a pier, which was designed and built during Defendant’s construction of the port. Construction of Mahogany Bay was completed in 2009 and since then has served as a port for Defendant’s cruise ships. Plaintiff alleges that on December 9, 2011, she slipped and fell on the walkway between the Legend and Mahogany Bay. Further, Plaintiff alleges that in the 2-year history of Mahogany Bay, numerous people slipped and fell on that walkway. Although Defendant knew, or should have known that the walkway was slippery, it failed to block off the walkway, provide another means of entering and boarding the vessel, or act to make the walkway less slippery. Defendant’s motion to dismiss challenged the allegations of notice, but the Court rejected said arguments and held that Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Defendant breached its duty of “reasonable care under the circumstances” and that Defendant’s failure to warn of the dangerous condition proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Next, Plaintiff alleged that the Pennsylvania Rule applies to her claim, thus shifting the burden of proof to Defendant. The Pennsylvania Rule typically applies to cases involving a collision or allision and holds that, “[w]hen a ship is involved in a collision and that ship is in violation of a statutory rule designed to prevent collisions, the burden shifts to the shipowner to prove that the violation was not a contributing cause of the collision.” The Eleventh Circuit has clarified that it “is not a rule of liability, but shifts the burden of proof as to causation.” Defendant contends that the Pennsylvania Rule is not applicable to the present case because the rule applies only to cases involving collisions or allisions. Court held even though the pleadings give no mention of a collision or allision as a cause of Plaintiff’s slip and fall, the court can evaluate the applicability of the Pennsylvania Rule at a later stage.
OUTCOME:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.
————————————–//—————————————-
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF SHIPOWNER WHERE CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER FELL OVERBOARD AND DIED. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS BARRED BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF LOSS OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT.
Margarita TELLO, M.D., as personal representative of the Estate of Jose Miguel Pietri Tello, her deceased son, for the benefit of the Estate’s beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
No. 11-24503-CV. May 20, 2013.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Defendant Cruise line moved for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff cruise ship passenger’s claims under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA).
OVERVIEW:
Plaintiff Margarita Tello brought this action against Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., when her son, Jose fell over board and drowned. Specifically, Plaintiff brought claims under DOHSA and other various negligence claims. Plaintiff claimed that her son wanted to become a doctor though he was only through with one-and-a-half years of undergraduate education. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the Plaintiff produced insufficient evidence of pecuniary loss by Plaintiff and by Jose’s dependents to sustain recovery under DOHSA. A DOHSA action is for “the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s spouse, parent, child or dependent relative,” and recovery is limited to a “fair compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the individuals for whose benefit the action is brought.” 46 U.S.C. §30303. The Court examined what fair compensation would be for the Plaintiff by looking at how DOHSA is interpreted. Plaintiff cited no evidence establishing Jose’s lost potential income, all Plaintiff stated was that Jose intended on one day becoming a doctor. Court held that the Plaintiff could not prove that she was reasonably expected to receive benefits from her son for his lifetime. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish the existence and extent of pecuniary damages to Jose’s alleged beneficiaries.
OUTCOME:
The Plaintiff failed to sustain its burden in establishing entitlement to recovery under DOHSA, and therefore the Court granted Royal Caribbean’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
————————————–//—————————————-
WHERE CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER DIED AS A RESULT OF THE ALLEGED MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE OF A SHIPBOARD PHYSICIAN, DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED CLAIM OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE SHIPOWNER BASED ON BARBETTA, BUT ALLOWED CLAIMS OF APPARENT AGENCY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION TO BE RE-PLED.
Patricia FRANZA, as personal representative of the estate of Pasquale F. Vaglio, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
No. 13-20090-CIV-LENARD/O’SULLIVAN. May 30, 2013.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiff Patricia Franza, as personal representative of the estate of Pasquale F. Vaglio, a cruise ship passenger, filed suit alleging negligent medical care and treatment, negligent hiring and training, and other related claims. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., moved to dismiss said claims.
OVERVIEW:
Plaintiff Patricia Franza, as personal representative, brought this action against Defendant Royal Caribbean, Ltd., when decedent Vaglio fell while attempting to get onto a trolley near the dock, suffering a severe blow to the head. Vaglio went to the ship’s infirmary and was examined by Nurse Garcia. Nurse Garcia told Vaglio that he was fine to return to his cabin that he might have a concussion, and that his wife should continue to look after him. Approximately an hour and a half later Vaglio’s condition was deteriorating and a family member called for emergency help. Vaglio was taken back to the infirmary and Doctor Gonzales ordered that Vaglio be transferred to a hospital for further care. The next day he was airlifted to another hospital, where he remained in intensive care until he passed away. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligent medical care and treatment, apparent agency, and negligent hiring, retention and training. Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss all claims and moved to limit Plaintiff’s damages to those allowed under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) and to strike Plaintiff’s jury trial demand. Court dismissed all claims of vicarious liability under Barbetta, which holds generally that a cruise line is not responsible for a shipboard physician’s medical negligence, but Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend to better plead her claims based on apparent agency and negligent hiring and retention.
OUTCOME:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was granted in part.
