Cruise Ship Law

JENNIFER ANN McALLISTER, by and through her parents, SHERRI and PATRICK McALLISTER, Guardians ad Litem, and SHERRI and PATRICK MCALLISTER, Individually v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LED, and PETER WALL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2393
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19166
September 14, 2004, Decided
September 14, 2004, Filed; September 15, 2004, Entered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a minor child and her parents, filed suit against defendants, a cruise ship company and one of its employees, alleging that the child was sexually molested by the employee. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to compel the depositions of a corporate representative and certain employees. The company filed a cross-motion for a protective order.

OVERVIEW: The company objected to many of the areas upon which plaintiffs sought to question the corporate representative. The company also objected to the production for deposition of the captains of the vessel on which the alleged incident took place. The court held that plaintiffs could question the representative as to: (1) any meetings or publications in which sexual assaults of any sort, perpetrated by a crew member upon a passenger, were discussed; (2) any and all sexual assaults perpetrated by a crew member against a passenger during the past 10 years; and (3) any lawsuit involving sexual assaults of any sort, perpetrated by a crew member upon a passenger. However, the court held that plaintiffs could not question the corporate representative as to information regarding successor liability, claims handling policies, employee grievance policies, and insurance coverage and exclusions because those areas of inquiry did not appear to be relevant to any issue in the case. The court further held that plaintiffs could depose the captains because they might have information concerning the company's history of failing to deal adequately with sexual assaults by crew members.

OUTCOME: The court ordered that plaintiffs could not question the company's corporate representative with respect to four areas of inquiry but could question the representative on all other areas of inquiry, with certain modifications. The court also ordered that plaintiffs could depose the captains of the vessel on which plaintiffs cruised at the time of the alleged incident.