PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST A CRUISE LINE WAS TIME BARRED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAITED MORE THAN A YEAR TO FILE SUIT UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY EVEN THOUGH THREE YEARS HAD NOT PASSED FROM THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.
JANE DOE (A.H.), Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CARNIVAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-13906 Non-Argument Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
167 Fed. Appx. 126; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3627
February 14, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant corporation, alleging that she was sexually assaulted by the corporation's employee when she took a cruise as a seventeen year-old. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the corporation's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the only issue was whether or not plaintiff's complaint was time-barred.
OVERVIEW: The corporation presented evidence that it sent each ticket holder a contract upon purchase that contained a limitations period for the filing of suits based on personal injuries sustained aboard the ship. The limitations period on plaintiff's ticket was for one year from the time she sustained the injury. Plaintiff filed the action more than one year from the date of her injury; and, more significantly, more than one year from the date of her eighteenth birthday, when she reached the age of majority. The instant court found that 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 183b(c) did not abrogate the contractually shortened statute of limitations, but rather simply tolled its operation until the appointment of the guardian. Section 183b(c) merely tolled the operation of the shortened statute of limitations during the time that the party was a minor. Thus, § 183b(c) tolled the operation of the contractually shortened statute of limitations until plaintiff reached the age of majority. Because plaintiff waited more than a year from that date, the district court correctly held that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
OUTCOME: The decision of the district court was affirmed.
