Tampa Injury News

Fill out the form
to speak to an
Injury Lawyer Now.

Cruise Ship Line Fails In Bid To Bring Personal Injury Case To Miami

November 22, 2005

Cruise lines use forum-selection clauses to steer lawsuits to their home ports, meaning a Cook County, Ill. resident injured while sailing any one of the Seven Seas could find venue for a personal-injury claim is limited to Miami.

But asserting he did not receive any documents containing a forum-selection clause, James Mack filed a personal-injury case against Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines in Chicago. According to Mack, he was injured due to Royal Caribbean's negligence during a Mediterranean cruise when he cut a foot in the ship's swimming pool area. Mack also wants to hold Royal Caribbean vicariously liable for alleged negligence of the ship's doctor in treating his injured foot.

Invoking a forum-selection clause, Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss. Relying on a line of traditional maritime cases, the shipowner argued it could not be held vicariously liable for the doctor's alleged negligence. After an evidentiary hearing, a Cook County judge ruled that Royal Caribbean failed to prove it provided Mack with a copy of its forum-selection clause. And applying modern precedent, the judge refused to dismiss the vicarious liability claim. Granting leave to appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed.

Outlining the rules for forum-selection clauses in cruise line tickets, Judge Greiman concluded that Royal Caribbean failed to prove it properly notified Mack that lawsuits would be restricted to Miami. On the vicarious liability claim, Greiman provides a thorough analysis of the conflicting cases. Although state courts are obligated to apply federal law in maritime cases, federal judges disagree on whether a cruise line can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a ship's doctor.

The court held that, 'given the evidence presented during the hearing in support of the trial court's conclusion and the scant evidence presented to dispute it, we cannot say that the trial court's conclusion that the forum restriction was not reasonably communicated to plaintiff was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.'

In addressing the planitiff's injury claims, the court stated that 'a passenger on a ship who falls ill has no reasonable choice but to seek treatment from the on-board physician and therefore has little control over their relationship. Furthermore, that an illness would occur at sea should be anticipated, particularly by the cruise industry, and most certainly illnesses do regularly occur at sea.'

The court concluded by saying 'accordingly, providing medical treatment for its passengers should be considered a part of a cruise line's business, as evidenced, in part, by federal maritime law's willingness to impose vicarious liability on shipowner's for their on-board physician's negligence in treating crew members. Moreover, cruise lines benefit from carrying on-board physicians.'