Cruise Ship Law

CHRISTIAN JOSEPH GIBBS, an infant by his Guardian ad Litem SUZANNE GIBBS; SUZANNE GIBBS; RICHARD GIBBS, Individually v. CARNIVAL CRUISELINES; CARNIVAL CORPORATION; ABC COMPANIES 1-10, (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown); JOHN DOES 1-10, (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown); Christian Joseph Gibbs; Suzanne Gibbs; Richard Gibbs, Appellants

No. 01-4101
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26425
October 16, 2002, Argued
December 20, 2002, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civ. No. 00-cv-04089). District Judge: Honorable Katherine S. Hayden.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a minor and his parents, challenged the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey's dismissal of their lawsuit against defendant cruise line, charging it with negligence, infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract in connection with injuries the minor suffered aboard one of its ships.

OVERVIEW: The appeal concerned the application of 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 183b, which regulated contractual limitations on time for passengers to sue maritime carriers, to the personal injury claims of the minor and his parents. The district court applied equitable estoppel essentially to preclude plaintiffs from denying that a March 25, 1999 letter from their counsel constituted the appointment of the minor's mother as guardian ad litem under § 183b(c). On appeal, the court applied federal admiralty law of estoppel and found that the cruise line had failed to show detrimental reliance. Moreover, the district court should not have precluded plaintiffs from presenting their argument, which it found meritorious, that the time-bar in the passenger ticket contract had not expired because no legal representative had yet been appointed for the minor. Accordingly, use of equitable estoppel was mistaken. The court also found that the minor's claim was not time-barred under the passenger ticket contract and 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 183b(c). The district court correctly dismissed the parents' claims, since the lawsuit was filed well after the one-year time-bar in the passenger ticket contract.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order dismissing the parents' individual claims, but vacated the order dismissing the minor's claims and remanded for further proceedings.