Cruise Ship Accidents

South Florida Court Dismisses Jones Act Case for Lack of Jurisdiction

Published on: July 14, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Tarasewicz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., a welder and pipefitter who was a Polish national suffered an ischemic stroke while working aboard a cruise ship off the coast of Florida. Although the man was apparently misdiagnosed initially, he was later removed from the ship and treated at a Fort Lauderdale hospital.

Less than two years later, the man and his wife filed a lawsuit against the owner of the vessel, the ship’s captain, and others in the Southern District of Florida. According to the couple’s complaint, the Polish man suffered the stroke as a direct result of the unsafe working conditions aboard the cruise ship. Because of this, the man asked the court to award him damages for negligence, breach of implied warranty, negligence under the Jones Act, failure to provide maintenance and cure, and other claims. In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the man’s lawsuit because it was filed in an improper forum. According to the defendants, the United States court lacked admiralty jurisdiction.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Case Filed Against Cruise Ship After Child Was Apparently Injured Onboard

Published on: June 22, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gittel v. Carnival Corp., the parents of a child who allegedly suffered an injury while traveling aboard a cruise ship filed a negligence action against the company that operated the vessel in the Southern District of Florida. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the child was hurt when she collided with a pointed edge that protruded into a ship passageway. In response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the cruise ship company filed a motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). In order to survive such a motion, a complaint is required to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

The federal court first examined the plaintiffs’ claim that the cruise ship operator committed negligence. The court stated it was required to rely on general negligence principles when examining a maritime tort case such as the one before it. In order to demonstrate negligence, a plaintiff must allege the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of that breach. After examining the language included in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the Southern District of Florida refused to dismiss the case with regard to the general negligence allegations.

Southern District of Florida Grants Summary Judgment in Lawsuit Based on Cruise Ship Excursion Injury

Published on: May 12, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., a man apparently suffered an injury while participating in a shore excursion during a cruise to Costa Rica. The man’s wife purchased the cruise ticket from a travel agent before the couple’s departure. Prior to boarding the cruise ship, the man signed a contract acknowledging that any companies offering shore excursions to him while aboard the vessel were independent contractors. The contract also stated the passenger agreed to participate in any on-shore activities at his own risk.

After departing from the cruise terminal, the man purchased a zip-line shore excursion from the Shore Excursion Desk that was located aboard the ship. The ticket stated the excursion would be operated by a third party that was an independent contractor. It also said the owner of the cruise ship would not be held liable for any injuries sustained by a passenger who elected to participate in the activity. In addition, the man signed a waiver that released the cruise company of all liability associated with the shore excursion.

Southern District of Florida Rules Cruise Ship Passenger Failed to Establish Negligence Following Injury Accident

Published on: April 9, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Poole v. Carnival Corp., a woman was allegedly injured while traveling aboard a cruise ship. According to the woman, she suffered serious harm when she walked into a glass door. Although the woman claimed she did not know if the door she walked into had a frame on it, a handle installed, or a sticker strip to increase visibility, the woman admitted that the area where she was hurt was well lit. A representative for the ship’s owner offered testimony that the glass door at issue had a metal handle and door frame installed. In addition, the representative claimed the door also included a sign that read “push” and a sticker strip across the width of the door installed at waist level. The cruise ship security officer who investigated the woman’s injury accident also stated there was a sticker strip installed in the middle of the door at the time of the incident.

Florida Court Reminds Plaintiffs General Maritime Law Does Not Recognize a Loss of Consortium Cause of Action

Published on: February 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has dismissed a breach of contract and loss of consortium claim that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Friedhofer v. NCL Ltd., two women apparently suffered damage to their hair while traveling aboard a cruise ship. As a result, the women and their spouses filed a lawsuit against the owner of the cruise ship in the Southern District of Florida. According to their complaint, the cruise ship owner breached its contract and acted negligently when the water on board the ship caused damage to the passengers’ hair. In addition, the plaintiffs sought loss of consortium benefits.

In response to the lawsuit, the cruise line filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and loss of consortium claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Typically, such a motion is appropriate when a plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate he or she is entitled to legal relief. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all of the facts included in the pleading as true and construe any inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Claims Against Cruise Ship Over Shore Excursion Accident

Published on: January 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Ash v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 28 cruise ship passengers were reportedly injured in a bus crash in St. Maarten. Prior to the accident, each individual purchased tickets for a related excursion from a St. Maarten tour provider that contracted with the cruise ship company. The tour provider then contracted with the bus company to offer transportation between the ship and the onshore excursion for the passengers.

Following the bus accident, the injured passengers filed a lawsuit against the cruise ship owner, tour operator, and bus company in the Southern District of Florida’s admiralty court. In their complaint, the passengers accused the defendants of committing negligence and asserted several other related claims. The Florida court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the foreign bus company for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the passengers filed an amended complaint. After that, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit with the federal court. According to the two companies, the cruise ship passengers failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Lawsuit Filed Against Cruise Ship Company

Published on: November 10, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has refused to dismiss a slip-and-fall case that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Young v. Carnival Corp., a woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the cruise line she traveled with in a Florida federal court. According to her complaint, the woman was injured when she slipped and fell on an unspecified substance while aboard a cruise ship. She also claimed that the cruise line breached its duty to protect her from being injured, and the company’s breach proximately caused her actual harm. In response to the woman’s lawsuit, the cruise company filed a motion to dismiss the woman’s case.

According to the cruise ship operator, the woman failed to plead the elements necessary to establish the company was negligent. In a federal lawsuit, a party’s case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In considering such a motion, a court is normally required to accept all of the facts alleged in the pleadings as true. After considering the company’s motion, the federal court said the woman successfully pleaded her negligence case.

Southern District of Florida Orders Trial in Negligence Case Against Cruise Ship

Published on: October 6, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has refused to grant summary judgment in a negligence lawsuit that was filed against a cruise ship company. In Gandhi v. Carnival Corp., a six-year-old girl was allegedly hurt by an elevator while traveling aboard a cruise ship. The child’s arm was apparently trapped in the gap between the elevator doors as they tried to close. The doors were purportedly bent and left bloody after other passengers wedged the door open in order to release the girl’s arm. Although the child was initially treated by physicians on the ship, her parents later sought the advice of another doctor.

Not long after returning home from the family’s cruise, the girl’s parents filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida seeking damages related to the child’s harm from the cruise line. As part of the case, the child’s parents, cruise ship workers, experts for both sides, and others offered deposition testimony to the federal court. Eventually, the cruise ship filed a motion for summary judgment in the case. A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if no material issue of fact is in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering such a motion, a court is required to view all facts and evidence offered in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party.

Orlando Court Refuses to Dismiss Couple’s Negligence Lawsuit Against Cruise Ship Owner

Published on: September 26, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Shore v. Magical Cruise Co., Ltd., a couple set sail on a themed cruise ship. While aboard the vessel, the wife apparently suffered a staphylococcal infection following a treatment in the ship’s spa. In addition, the husband allegedly became ill as well. After the couple returned from their cruise, they filed a negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against the owner of the cruise ship and the operator of the spa where the wife was purportedly injured.

In response to the couple’s lawsuit, the defendants argued that the couple failed to plead sufficient facts to support a negligence lawsuit. Specifically, the defendants claimed the couple failed to allege they had a duty to warn the woman or that they breached their duty. Normally, in order to demonstrate negligence, a plaintiff must assert the at-fault party owed the plaintiff a duty, the at-fault party breached that duty, the plaintiff was injured as a result of that breach, and the plaintiff suffered damages. The federal court disagreed with the defendants and stated the allegations included in the couple’s complaint were sufficient to state a negligence claim.

Florida Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Case Against Cruise Line: Torres v. Carnival Corp.

Published on: July 25, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has dismissed a slip-and-fall case against a cruise ship operator. In Torres v. Carnival Corp., a passenger on a cruise ship filed a negligence and failure to warn lawsuit against the company that owns the vessel on which she traveled, seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained in a slip-and-fall accident on an exterior deck. According to the woman, she tripped over a raised threshold that was obscured by a rug while walking through an opening during disembarkation.

In response to the woman’s lawsuit, the cruise ship company filed a motion for summary judgment. When a party to a lawsuit files such a motion, the party is asking the court to find that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all of the evidence offered by each party in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party. When a summary judgment motion is granted, a court is essentially stating a jury trial is not required based on the facts of the dispute.

To prove negligence, an injured person is required to demonstrate that an at-fault party owed him or her a duty, violated that duty, and directly caused his or her harm because of that violation. According to the Southern District of Florida, the woman failed to carry her burden of proving negligence because she did not demonstrate the carpet lying on the threshold was unreasonably dangerous. In fact, testimony offered to the court suggested exactly the opposite was true. In addition, the court stated that even if a dangerous condition existed, the cruise ship did not fail to warn the woman because Florida does not require any warning for an obvious hazard like a rug.