Cruise Ship Law

ROGER C. BENSON and PATRICIA HARDY-SMITH, individually andas Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of NOAH BENJAMIN BENSON, a minor,Appellants, vs. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED, and CARLA VON BENECKE, M.D.,Appellees.

CASE NO. 3D01-1845
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16714
November 5, 2003, Opinion Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: An appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Judith L. Kreeger, Judge. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 99-4704. Opinion Substituted for Opinion dated January 15, 2003 reported at: Benson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 834 So. 2d 915, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist., 2003)

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court withdrew an earlier opinion and substituted the instant opinion. Appellant parents brought a wrongful death action asserting medical malpractice against appellees, a cruise line and a cruise ship doctor. The court ruled that the ship was outside Florida's territorial waters at the relevant times and granted a motion to dismiss as to the doctor. The parents appealed from the Dade County Circuit Court (Florida).

OVERVIEW: Where alleged medical malpractice aboard a cruise ship occurred when the ship was 11.7 nautical miles east of the Florida shore, the medical malpractice incident occurred within Florida's territorial waters. The ship had not yet reached the edge of the Gulf Stream, which was 14 nautical miles east of the relevant portion of Florida's coastline on the day in question. Thus, based on the boundary as stated in Fla. Const. art. II, § 1 (1968), the claimed incident occurred within Florida's territorial boundaries. The doctor argued that under the federal Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.S. § 1301 et seq., Florida was not allowed to claim an Atlantic territorial sea greater than three nautical miles. That was not so. The present case did not involve any claim of ownership of the ocean bed or the resources contained therein and the Submerged Lands Act did not prevent Florida from asserting a territorial sea beyond three miles in the Atlantic, and exercising police powers thereon. The conduct at issue occurred on the ocean's surface, not on the ocean bottom. International law was not addressed, as the incident occurred when the cruise ship was less than 12 nautical miles offshore.

OUTCOME: The appellate court reversed the judgment dismissing the doctor from the lawsuit, and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the opinion, the motion for rehearing and certification of a question of great public importance were denied.