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. 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

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

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd ., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean. Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship

Maritime Law--Jury Hits Royal Caribbean Cruises With $20.3M Verdict for Officer's Hand Injury

In Spearman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises , Case No. 2011-023730-CA-01, a Miami-Dade County, Florida jury has awarded $20.3 million to a former crewmember of Royal Caribbean Cruises, whose hand was crushed while coming to the aid of a fellow worker during an emergency test in 2008. After a three-week trial, the jury found the Miami-based cruise company negligent in operating an unseaworthy ship and 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Lisa Spearman, who was working an officer on Royal Caribbean’s Voyager of the Seas . Spearman sued the company in 2011, three years after her right hand was caught in a watertight power door during a fire-safety drill. According to her lawyers, Spearman was trying to prevent the door from closing on the ship’s nurse when her hand was pulled into a recess pocket of the sliding door and crushed.  The nurse allegedly breached the company’s safety protocol when she stumbled through the door, prompting the response from Spearman. Accordin