NEW TRIAL GRANTED WHERE DIRECTED VERDICT ENTERED AGAINST A PASSENGER CLAIM THAT SHE WAS STRUCK BY A MOORING LINE WHILE SITTING ON A DECK OF THE SHIP
NEW TRIAL GRANTED WHERE DIRECTED VERDICT ENTERED AGAINST A PASSENGER CLAIM THAT SHE WAS STRUCK BY A MOORING LINE WHILE SITTING ON A DECK OF THE SHIP - COURT NOTES THAT A SHIP OWNER COULD HAVE A HIGHER DUTY THAN A LANDOWNER WHERE DANGER DIFFERENT THAN FROM DANGERS ENCOUNTERED IN DAILY LIFE
SARA KALENDAREVA, Appellant, v. DISCOVERY CRUISE LINE PARTNERSHIP, DISCOVERY SUN PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a DISCOVERY CRUISE LINE, DISCOVERY DAWN, INC., and DISCOVERY DAWN PARTNERSHIP, Appellees. CASE NO. 4D00-4151
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT
798 So. 2d 804; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15025; 26 Fla. L.Weekly D 2545
October 24, 2001, Opinion Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Estella May Moriarty, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-04309 (05).
DISPOSITION: Reversed for a new trial.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant passenger sued appellee ship owner in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County (Florida), alleging maritime negligence. The trial court granted the ship owner's motion for directed verdict holding there was no evidence it knew or should have known of the danger. The passenger appealed.
OVERVIEW: The passenger was sitting on a lounge chair on the third deck of the cruise ship and was struck by the weighted end of a rope thrown while the ship was docking. After she presented her maritime negligence case, the trial court granted the ship owner a directed verdict on the ground it was plaintiff's burden to show notice of a dangerous condition, and that there was no evidence the ship owner had notice of the freak accident. The appellate court initially noted a ship owner could have a higher duty of care than a landowner, depending on the danger. The appellate court held the extent to which the circumstances surrounding maritime travel were different from those encountered in daily life and involved more danger to a passenger, would determine how high a degree of care was reasonable in each case. The appellate court concluded the trial court should have allowed the jury to decide whether the ship owner should have known of the danger to passengers on the third deck.
OUTCOME: The directed verdict was reversed and case was remanded for a new trial.
