Cruise Ship Operator, Which Is A Common Carrier, Is Not Vicariously Liable For The Intentional Torts Of Crew Members Aboard Its Vessels Which Are Not Employees Of The Cruise Ship Operator But, Rather, Are Employees Of A Catering Company...
Cruise Ship Operator, Which Is A Common Carrier, Is Not Vicariously Liable For The Intentional Torts Of Crew Members Aboard Its Vessels Which Are Not Employees Of The Cruise Ship Operator But, Rather, Are Employees Of A Catering Company. Additionally, Catering Company, Which Is Not A Common Carrier, Is Not Vicariously Liable For The Intentional Torts Of Its Employees.
JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 00-2523-CIV-MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17573
September 22, 2003, Decided
September 23, 2003, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8111 (S.D. Fla., 2001)
DISPOSITION: Defendants' Motion for Judgment as Matter of Law GRANTED. Prior judgment VACATED and judgment ENTERED for Defendants.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff passenger sued defendants, a cruise ship operator, a cruise ship owner, a catering company, and the ship, for damages associated with an alleged sexual assault by a crew member on the passenger. The matter went to trial and a jury found that the crew member committed a sexual battery on the passenger. Defendants filed a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.
OVERVIEW: The matter went to trial on the issue of strict liability against defendants for the alleged intentional torts by the crew member for intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual assault, and sexual battery. The jury awarded the passenger one million dollars and attributed 25 percent of the responsibility to the cruise ship operator, the cruise ship owner, the catering company, and the ship. The court found that it was bound by the law of the case doctrine with regard to the judge's opinion, and the opinion was not clear error. The court would not make credibility determinations regarding the passenger's testimony and the jury could have reasonably found that the passenger was more credible than the crew member. However, there was an issue as to whether any defendant was a common carrier for purposes of vicarious liability for the intentional torts of the crew member. Only the cruise ship operator was a common carrier, but it was not the crew member's employer. None of the other defendants were common carriers. As such no defendants could be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of the crew member.
OUTCOME: Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted. The judgment was vacated and judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
