Claim Against Cruise Line For Malpractice Of Ship's Physician Based On Vicarious Liability Stated Claim For Relief
KATHLEEN HUNTLEY, Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, aforeign corporation, d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, and DR. GREGORY M. McNAMARA,M.D., Defendants.
CASE NO. 03-21925-CIV-KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
307 F. Supp. 2d 1372; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4195; 17 Fla. L.Weekly Fed. D 415
March 12, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff passenger filed an action against defendants, a cruise ship corporation and a cruise ship doctor, to recover damages after she suffered injuries during a fall on a cruise ship. Her complaint contained five negligence-based counts. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the corporation moved to dismiss the counts of the complaint that alleged medical negligence and vicarious liability for the doctor's alleged medical malpractice.
OVERVIEW: The passenger claimed that she slipped while in the ship's casino bar and that the doctor, who was employed by the corporation, committed medical malpractice while treating her. The corporation moved to dismiss the passenger's two medical malpractice based claims, asserting that under the majority legal rule articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the ship's doctor. The court denied the motion after concluding that the passenger might be able to establish a set of facts entitling her to relief. The court had already recognized the possibility of a cruise line's vicarious liability for a ship doctor's actions based upon apparent agency grounds. The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida had rejected the majority rule and had embraced the minority view, which held that a shipowner might be held vicariously liable where a ship's physician was in the regular employment of a ship, as a salaried member of the crew, subject to the ship's discipline and the master's orders, and presumably also under the direction and supervision of the company's chief surgeon.
OUTCOME: The court denied the corporation's motion to dismiss. It ordered the corporation to file an answer to the passenger's complaint within 20 days of the court's order.
