Skip to main content

Maritime Law--Barbetta Rejected! Passenger May Sue Cruise Line Under Agency Theories

In Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Docket No. 13-13067 (11th Cir. Nov. 10, 2014), the Plaintiff filed suit against Royal Caribbean for maritime negligence after her elderly father fell and hit his head while on one of Royal Caribbean's cruise vessels. The Plaintiff's father died a week after the injury. Plaintiff alleged that Royal Caribbean is vicariously liable for the negligence of two of its employees, the onboard nurse and doctor, under an actual agency or apparent agency theory. The court concluded that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint plausibly support holding Royal Caribbean vicariously liable for the medical negligence of its onboard nurse and doctor.


The court declined to adopt the Barbetta rule, which immunizes a ship owner from respondent superior liability whenever a ship's employees render negligent medical care to its passengers. The court found that the complaint in this cause plausibly establishes a claim against Royal Caribbean under the doctrine of actual agency, as well as the principles of apparent agency. Because the plaintiff adequately pled all the elements of both actual and apparent agency, the court held that plaintiff may press her claims under either or both theories. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This precise issue was discussed in the St. Thomas School of Law symposium on maritime law held in April of this year, which I blogged on some time ago. It was my point that the Eleventh Circuit had never decided, in binding precedent, whether a passenger may hold a ship owner vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the ship's employees. In Franza, the Eleventh Circuit pointed this out and also noted the case of De Zon v. American President Lines, Ltd., 318 U.S. 660, 669 (1943), which held that a "shipowner was liable in damages for harm suffered as a result of any negligence on the part of the ship's doctor." This was my point precisely--if a ship owner is liable in damages for harm suffered by a seafarer as a result of negligence on the part of the ship's doctor, how can a passenger, who has paid for a ticket on a common carrier, be excluded from ever suing the cruise line for the negligence of its doctor?

If you are interested in contacting me or receiving a copy of the decision, please feel free to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

  1. Miami Party RentalsJuly 31, 2015 at 4:13 AM

    Nice share! Thanks a lot for such a lovely blog posting this time around as well.Led Screen Miami, Miami Wedding Venues, LED Dance Floor Miami, Furniture Rental Miami, Stage Rental Miami,

    ReplyDelete
  2. benilhalkAugust 28, 2015 at 6:23 AM

    Thank you so much for this useful and informative article dear. I am really grateful to you for sharing it here. I also need help with legal information about hiring Lincoln park wedding venues and organizing a wedding there. Please help.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget.   The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos...
6 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more