Cruise Ship Law

Adrian Sainz
Associated Press

MIAMI - Carnival Corp. CEO Micky Arison said Thursday that improving infrastructure at ports of call, conserving fuel and knocking down perceptions that cruises are more dangerous than other vacations are some of the challenges facing the cruise industry.

Arison, speaking on Carnival Cruise Lines' 35th anniversary, also expressed optimism in the long-term health of the Caribbean cruise market and said Carnival would not get engage its main competitor, Royal Caribbean International, in a race to build bigger ships.

Carnival Corp. owns 12 brands as the world's largest cruise operator, with more than 7 million passengers taking trips on Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises, Costa Cruises and other lines in the Caribbean, Europe and Asia. The company will soon have 11 brands after announcing Thursday a deal to sell Windstar Cruises to Ambassadors International Inc. for $100 million, with closing expected later this year.

Arison pointed out that cruising continues to be a growth industry. The Cruise Lines International Association predicts that 12.6 million passengers will take cruises this year, an increase of 500,000 guests from 2006.

Carnival Corp. has 20 ships on order through 2011 and, according to its annual report filed in November, expects growth of about 5 percent in North America and 9.5 percent in Europe for the next three years. The company was working hard to make Europe more of a year-around destination, Arison said.

"We have the right ships coming to the right brands at the right time," Arison said. "Even if I could cancel, I wouldn't cancel an order."

Arison noted that pricing is down in the Caribbean - where the industry has seen a general softness in demand - and that was negatively affecting net revenue yields. Yields are a key profitability gauge that measure net income earned from passengers per day from cruise tickets and onboard sales.

But he said that while Wall Street analysts may not like that yields and prices are down, the consumer is benefiting from lower prices. Arison said the key Caribbean market would be fine in the long run, but that the company's marketing arm is working on sparking demand for Caribbean cruises in the short term.

"I'm sure we're going to carry a record number of guests to the Caribbean this year ... because the industry is growing," he said.

Another issue affecting the industry is what Arison considers overblown media coverage of stomach illnesses and crimes on cruise ships. Media outlets should not make such a big deal about outbreaks of norovirus on cruise ships because they happen less frequently on cruises than they do in everyday life, he said.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Carnival's brands had 15 reported norovirus outbreaks in 2006. But the CDC estimates that 23 million people, or 8 percent of the U.S. population, develop symptoms of norovirus each year, but less than 1 percent of cruise passengers are affected by norovirus.

"It is something that is a struggle for us," Arison said. "There's no question that there's a perception out there by X number of people that there's a higher risk of getting sick on a cruise ship than another form of vacation, which is terrible. It's unfortunate and we just have to continue to do what we do and try to minimize the impact."

Arison said Carnival and other companies already mandated that crimes be reported before last year's congressional hearings on cruise safety that stemmed from the highly publicized disappearance of a man from a Royal Caribbean cruise. While he supports working with federal law enforcement on formalizing crime reporting standards, Arison is against the idea of posting those reports on the Internet because no other industry that caters to vacationers - resorts, airplanes, restaurants - is held to the same standard.

"If everybody does the same thing, we're happy," Arison said

Carnival also has put together a team to develop strategies for keeping fuel costs down. Among those are finding more efficient ways to operate lighting, water and air conditioning on cruise ships, and maximize itineraries to reduce fuel consumption.

"Captains in the past may not have been sensitive to the issue of fuel and just go from one port to another and not use their engines the most efficient ways," Arison said.

Another issue is improving infrastructure in and around ports of call to accommodate more passengers, and ease the strain on heavily traveled destinations. Carnival has developed a port in the Turks and Caicos Islands and is discussing a project in Honduras. Also, Holland America has developed an island in the southern Bahamas called Half Moon Cay, which is also used by Carnival Cruise Lines.

"As we're adding ships of such big size, we're putting a lot of strain on that and we have to work with destinations and invest in destination to develop that infrastructure," Arison said.

Along with the infrastructure issue is the trend of building huge "superliners" led by Royal Caribbean, which currently has the largest cruise ship ever built, the 160,000-ton Freedom of the Seas. Royal Caribbean also has announced plans to build a 220,000-ton ship for $1.24 billion.

Carnival will present its new 110,000-ton ship Carnival Freedom on March 4 in Italy and has exercised its option for a 130,000-ton vessel. However, Arison seems content to let his main cruise competitor own the world's largest cruise ship.

"The reality is that we're looking to build the right products for our brands," Arison said. "There comes a time where there's so many inherent issues with size, flexibility, strain on infrastructure, we're putting a lot of strain on ports of call."

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 11:26 AM | Permalink

Sun-Sentinel.com staff & wires

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica -- SAN JOSE, Costa Rica -- An American senior citizen aboard a tour bus killed an alleged mugger by breaking his neck with his bare hands while his traveling companions fended off two other assailants in the Atlantic coast city of Limon, police said.

The American, who is about 70 years old and retired from the Marines, put the 20-year-old in a head lock and broke his neck after the suspect and two other men armed with a knife and .38 caliber gun held up the tour bus, said Luis Hernandez, the police chief of Limon, 80 miles east of San Jose.

"His neck was completely snapped," Hernandez said.

The suspect, Warner Segura, was later declared dead, apparently from asphyxiation.

The two other men fled when the 12 senior citizens defended themselves during Wednesday's attack.

"One of the tourists was a former Marine and he was probably the one who broke (Segura's) neck," Hernandez said.

The Americans had gotten off their tour bus to take photos in a notoriously rough neighborhood a short drive from Limon.

After the attack, they put Segura's body on their bus and found a police officer in Limon to report the incident. Afterward, the Red Cross treated one of the tourists for an anxiety attack, Hernandez said Thursday.

The tourists left on the Carnival cruise ship Liberty after the incident and Hernandez said authorities do not plan to press charges against them.

``They were in their right to defend themselves after being held up,'' he said.

Hernandez said Segura had previous charges against him for assaults.

In a media statement, Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines said the attack occurred during an outing at a Limon beach which a group of a dozen passengers had arranged on their own.

``According to witnesses, while sightseeing at a local beach, the group of guests were approached by three assailants, one of whom was armed,'' the statement said.

``The victims struggled with the armed perpetrator, and were able to disarm him. During this process, the gunman's two accomplices fled the scene. In the course of disarming and restraining the assailant, he died from apparent asphyxiation.''

Neither the Costa Rican police nor Carnival identified the man involved in the struggle with the mugger.

The cruise line said the guests were questioned by local law enforcement and then returned to the ship. The ship's departure from Limon was slightly delayed.

``All of the guests involved, who had booked the cruise together as a group, have opted to continue with their vacation plans. Carnival is providing full support and assistance to the guests,'' according to the statement.

The ship is on an eight-day western Caribbean cruise that departed Fort Lauderdale/Port Everglades on Feb. 17 with scheduled stops in Costa Maya, Mexico; Limon, Costa Rica; and Colon, Panama. It is scheduled to return to Fort Lauderdale early Sunday.

Staff Writer Macollvie Jean-Francois contributed to this report as did the Associated Press.

The maritime lawyers of Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A. have significant experience in handling injury and death claims arising from cruise ship shore excursions.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 9:33 AM | Permalink

By Nicky Willemse

A Port Elizabeth woman‘s dream job working on a cruise liner in the Caribbean was transformed into a nightmare experience when she was allegedly raped by a fellow crew member.

And 18 months later, she is still haunted by the experience and waiting for some semblance of justice to be done.

After having been repeatedly fobbed off by the company which had contracted her to work in the liner‘s spa, she now fears the matter has been “swept under the carpet”.

From the outset her case was dealt with with scepticism by both Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd and Steiner Transocean, which operated the spa on the liner Explorer of the Seas.

Days after reports of the incident came to light, Taryn, 26, (who asked that her surname be withheld) was told by the ship‘s management that, because she had had a few drinks on the night of the attack, her side of the story was “not as believable” as her alleged assailant‘s – and she had “no right to accuse him (of rape)”.

She was then told to get off the ship and sent back to South Africa and to this day the company refuses to tell her if any action was ever taken against her assailant – who hails from East London – saying the matter is “confidential”.

But Taryn‘s story is not unusual and each year thousands of young South Africans apply for jobs on international cruise ships. Cruise Alternatives, one of several SA recruitment agencies specialising in cruise ship jobs, places up to 500 South Africans on luxury ships a year.

However, the jobs are not always as attractive as the recruitment marketing portrays them.

US-based maritime law firm Lipcon Margulies and Alsina, which specialises in cases against cruise lines, says it has obtained a list of sexual assaults from Royal Caribbean amounting to 173 over three-and-a-half years. Of these, not one person has been prosecuted.

“Sexual assault on cruise ships is common,” lawyer Charles Lipcon told Weekend Post this week.

He said the fact that the ships were in international waters made it easier for perpetrators to get away with their crime.

“I refer to it as ‘open season on the high seas‘. I believe sexual predators are learning that nothing happens to them, so assaults are increasing.

“In my opinion, they (cruise ships) go out of their way to cover up these crimes to avoid bad publicity or their own liability.”

Taryn, a beauty therapist, worked in the slimming and detox section of the liner‘s spa, while her alleged rapist, a fitness instructor, worked in the ship‘s fitness centre.

“We were friends. The ship community is very close-knit – everyone becomes like family.”

The night of the assault, in August 2005, Taryn was in the crew bar when the fitness instructor laughingly removed from her jeans‘ back pocket the key-card to open her room.

“I got up to go and get it, but he ran away. I didn‘t think much of it – I thought I‘d just spend the night in a friend‘s room.”

But, checking her own room later that night, she saw her door was unlocked. “I thought it was my room mate, but then I saw he was sleeping in my bed.”

She lay down on the bed next to him and fell asleep. “I know I shouldn‘t have walked into the room, but I trusted him because we were like family.”

Speaking through tears, she said: “I woke up in the early hours of the morning . . . he was on top of me. He got aggro when I told him to stop, and I started shouting. I was too scared to move – I just lay there.”

She stayed in her room for the whole of the next day, trying to make sense of what had happened. She even phoned him to talk about it, but he brushed her off. It was only later that night, speaking to her room mate, that she admitted to herself that she had been raped.

After that, she ignored him, but wasn‘t sure how to handle the matter. “I felt scared and guilty.”

A month later, the deep change in her countenance was picked up by her spa manager, who had just returned after a holiday. After some probing questions, she asked Taryn if she had been raped. “I just burst into tears.”

The spa manager encouraged Taryn to report the matter to the ship‘s human resources department. She was then called to a meeting with top management from both the ship and the spa. “They told me there were two stories, his and mine, but his sounded more believable, because I had been drinking.

“I wasn‘t plastered, and I know he had been drinking too. The fact remains that I told him to get out of my room, but he didn‘t.”

She was then given two options: to drop the matter, or take it further, but she was told that would mean the CIA and the FBI getting involved.

Feeling intimidated, she said she did not want “the whole of the US involved”, but she wasn‘t prepared to drop it either. She then agreed to management‘s suggestion that the matter be passed to Steiner Transocean.

The spa manager got in touch with Steiner Transocean‘s head office in Miami, which operates spas on a number of cruise ships – and Taryn was given an hour to leave the ship, which was in dry dock at the time. Before she left, Steiner Transocean agreed to pay for any counselling and medical expenses.

Once back in South Africa, she tried to find out from Steiner Transocean whether any steps had been taken against her attacker, but was told that the matter was confidential.

This was the same response given to Weekend Post this week. “No employee can know whether any action was taken against another employee,” said Steiner Transocean spokesman Bob Boehm. “The allegations were taken very seriously, and we took steps that were deemed appropriate.” He would not provide further details.

The company‘s head of claims and risk management Elizabeth Junco later said the FBI investigated all incidents in international waters.

She said they had conducted interviews with crew members who worked with Taryn and the fitness instructor and “concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated”. She said Taryn was sent home “for her own safety”.

Royal Caribbean did not respond to several emails or phone messages.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 9:23 AM | Permalink

By Nicky Willemse
Weekend Post

A PORT Elizabeth woman's dream job working on a cruise liner in the Caribbean was transformed into a nightmare experience when she was allegedly raped by a fellow crew member.

And 18 months later, she is still haunted by the experience and waiting for some semblance of justice to be done.

After having been repeatedly fobbed off by the company which had contracted her to work in the liner's spa, she now fears the matter has been "swept under the carpet".

From the outset her case was dealt with with scepticism by both Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd and Steiner Transocean, which operated the spa on the liner Explorer of the Seas.

Days after reports of the incident came to light, Taryn, 26, (who asked that her surname be withheld) was told by the ship's management that, because she had had a few drinks on the night of the attack, her side of the story was "not as believable" as her alleged assailant's Ð and she had "no right to accuse him (of rape)".

She was then told to get off the ship and sent back to South Africa and to this day the company refuses to tell her if any action was ever taken against her assailant Ð who hails from East London Ð saying the matter is "confidential".

But Taryn's story is not unusual and each year thousands of young South Africans apply for jobs on international cruise ships. Cruise Alternatives, one of several SA recruitment agencies specialising in cruise ship jobs, places up to 500 South Africans on luxury ships a year.

However, the jobs are not always as attractive as the recruitment marketing portrays them.

US-based maritime law firm Lipcon Margulies and Alsina, which specialises in cases against cruise lines, says it has obtained a list of sexual assaults from Royal Caribbean amounting to 173 over three-and-a-half years. Of these, not one person has been prosecuted.

"Sexual assault on cruise ships is common," lawyer Charles Lipcon told Weekend Post this week.

"In my opinion, they (cruise ships) go out of their way to cover up these crimes to avoid bad publicity or their own liability."

Taryn, a beauty therapist, worked in the slimming and detox section of the liner's spa, while her alleged rapist, a fitness instructor, worked in the ship's fitness centre.

"We were friends. The ship community is very close-knit Ð everyone becomes like family."

The night of the assault, in August 2005, Taryn was in the crew bar when the fitness instructor laughingly removed from her jeans' back pocket the key-card to open her room.

"I got up to go and get it, but he ran away. I didn't think much of it Ð I thought I'd just spend the night in a friend's room."

But, checking her own room later that night, she saw her door was unlocked. "I thought it was my room mate, but then I saw he was sleeping in my bed."

She lay down on the bed next to him and fell asleep. "I know I shouldn't have walked into the room, but I trusted him because we were like family."

Speaking through tears, she said: "I woke up in the early hours of the morning . . . he was on top of me. He got aggro when I told him to stop, and I started shouting. I was too scared to move Ð I just lay there."

She stayed in her room for the whole of the next day, trying to make sense of what had happened. She even phoned him to talk about it, but he brushed her off. It was only later that night, speaking to her room mate, that she admitted to herself that she had been raped.

After that, she ignored him, but wasn't sure how to handle the matter. "I felt scared and guilty."

A month later, the deep change in her countenance was picked up by her spa manager, who had just returned after a holiday. After some probing questions, she asked Taryn if she had been raped. "I just burst into tears."

The spa manager encouraged Taryn to report the matter to the ship's human resources department. She was then called to a meeting with top management from both the ship and the spa. "They told me there were two stories, his and mine, but his sounded more believable, because I had been drinking.

"I wasn't plastered, and I know he had been drinking too. The fact remains that I told him to get out of my room, but he didn't."

She was then given two options: to drop the matter, or take it further, but she was told that would mean the CIA and the FBI getting involved.

Feeling intimidated, she said she did not want "the whole of the US involved", but she wasn't prepared to drop it either. She then agreed to management's suggestion that the matter be passed to Steiner Transocean.

The spa manager got in touch with Steiner Transocean's head office in Miami, which operates spas on a number of cruise ships Ð and Taryn was given an hour to leave the ship, which was in dry dock at the time. Before she left, Steiner Transocean agreed to pay for any counselling and medical expenses.

Once back in South Africa, she tried to find out from Steiner Transocean whether any steps had been taken against her attacker, but was told that the matter was confidential.

This was the same response given to Weekend Post this week. "No employee can know whether any action was taken against another employee," said Steiner Transocean spokesman Bob Boehm. "The allegations were taken very seriously, and we took steps that were deemed appropriate." He would not provide further details.

The company's head of claims and risk management Elizabeth Junco later said the FBI investigated all incidents in international waters.

She said they had conducted interviews with crew members who worked with Taryn and the fitness instructor and "concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated". She said Taryn was sent home "for her own safety".

Royal Caribbean did not respond to several emails or phone messages.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 2:37 AM | Permalink

Plaintiffs' lawyers are expected to ask the Supreme Court to weigh whether cruise lines are free of liability for onboard doctors' acts. Our maritime firm handled the handled the case that resulted in the ruling that was favorable to passengers. View the initial favorable ruling, the Carlisle Decision.

Are Cruises Liable for Doctors?
BY MARTHA BRANNIGAN

A Florida Supreme Court decision this week that cruise lines aren't liable for the malpractice of onboard physicians won't put to rest the contentious issue.

Attorneys for a passenger -- who sued Carnival Corp. after her appendicitis was misdiagnosed as the flu in 1997 -- plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the question.

''This is a very important question for millions of passengers,'' Charles Lipcon, a Miami attorney who intends to appeal on behalf of the passenger, said Friday. ``Unless cruise lines are responsible for their doctors, there is basically no recourse for passengers.''

Plaintiffs attorneys say cruise-line doctors typically come from foreign countries, which makes it difficult to serve a lawsuit on them; moreover, their assets -- if they have any -- are hard to go after.

The case involved a 14-year-old Michigan girl, Elizabeth Carlisle, whose abdominal and back pain and diarrhea was misdiagnosed as flu by a cruise-ship physician. She was later diagnosed with a ruptured appendix and a subsequent infection left her sterile, the suit filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court alleged.

The trial court dismissed Carlisle's case against Carnival, but the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami reinstated it in 2003, finding the doctor was the ship's agent, and therefore the line could be held liable for his actions.

But that decision -- which relied on a single, old case in northern California -- conflicted with the bulk of federal maritime decisions, which say cruise lines aren't responsible for their doctors' deeds.

The state's high court, noting maritime cases must be treated uniformly, tossed out the case against Carnival on Thursday, even though it agreed that the passenger's argument about the cruise line's indirect responsibility made sense.

''The Florida Supreme Court opinion said it agreed with us conceptually,'' said Miami attorney David H. Pollack, who represents Carlisle. ``Quite a few people who cruise are retired, older people who do have a medical condition. There is a level of comfort to knowing there is someone who can treat you, but what if that someone messes up?''

Pollack said cruise tickets state in fine print that doctors are independent contractors the lines aren't liable for. ``I don't think anybody when going on a cruise would assume the ship is not responsible for their doctor.''

A Carnival spokesman declined to comment on the case, referring questions to its attorneys. ''For well over 100 years, the federal courts and most state courts have held a cruise line isn't liable for the doctors,'' said Darren W. Friedman of Maltzman Foreman P.A., who represents Carnival. ``A cruise line is essentially that: a cruise line. It's not a hospital. The doctors are responsible for their own actions.''

Friedman said suggestions that passengers have no recourse against doctors are inaccurate. ''The doctor in this case has insurance,'' Friedman said.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 9:08 AM | Permalink

Our maritime lawyers handled this case that resulted in the ruling that was favorable to passengers. It is anticipated that application will be made to the United States Supreme Court to review the decision.

View the initial favorible ruling, The Carlise Decision.

Court Rules Cruise Line not Responsible for Misdiagnosis by Ship's Doctor
By Tom Stieghorst
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

In a big setback for people injured on cruise ships, the Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday that cruise lines aren't responsible for the negligent acts of ship physicians who harm passengers during treatment.

The ruling means only the doctors can be sued. The company is protected unless it knowingly hired an incompetent or unqualified doctor.

That leaves injured passengers without recourse, plaintiff attorneys say. They argue that most doctors on cruise ships are foreign residents, putting them beyond the reach of U.S. courts for all practical purposes.

A spokeswoman for Carnival Cruise Lines, the company that was sued in the case decided by the Supreme Court, referred calls to its outside counsel Jeffrey Maltzman. Efforts to reach Maltzman were unsuccessful.

Florida law is especially significant because the major cruise lines, such as Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian, are based in Florida. Their ticket contracts say suits must be brought in South Florida courts.

The ruling overturns a 3rd District Court of Appeal decision in favor of Elizabeth Carlisle, a Michigan teen whose ruptured appendix was misdiagnosed on a Carnival ship in 1997. On a family cruise to Mexico, Carlisle had stomach pains and was told by the ship's doctor she had the flu. When she flew home, the true problem was discovered.

Carlisle, who was 14 years old, was rendered sterile by the rupture and subsequent infection, the court said.

In its 20-page opinion, the Supreme Court said there was merit in Carlisle's case. The lower court had sided with her, saying that the doctor appeared to be an employee of the cruise line. Carnival argued he was an independent contractor.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed, saying that federal maritime law was settled in favor of the cruise lines, despite a lone federal case that disagreed. Since ships move through different state and international jurisdictions, it said, they must face uniform laws.

Tracking down foreign doctors and compelling them to appear in U.S. courts is extremely difficult, attorneys say. In previous court filings, Carlisle's attorneys said they were unable to serve papers on the English doctor who treated Elizabeth.

The ruling only applies to cruise customers. Under a U.S. labor law, the same doctor who is considered a contractor when treating passengers is deemed an employee when treating crew, giving the cruise line shared liability for any mistakes.

"It's a perfect decision to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and I think it will be," he said.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 4:49 PM | Permalink

Richard Stopford's first person account of the Antarctic cruise ship that crashed into rocks last week.

A Royal Navy vessel had to come to the rescue of a cruise ship that crashed into rocks last week during a trip to Antarctica.

The MS Nordkapp, carrying 295 passengers, hit the rocks near Deception Island, off the Antarctic Peninsula. The passengers, who were midway through a 20-day cruise with the Norwegian line Hurtigruten, feared for their lives after the impact, which left an 80ft hole in the ship's side through which oil poured out and water came in. Critics say the cruise ship accident highlights the vulnerability of cruises in remote waters.

Richard Stopford, 54, from Farnham in Surrey, was one of the 17 Britons on board. Here is his account:

"It was meant to be the trip of a lifetime. Heading to the furthest reaches of the Antarctic by boat had always been on my "do before I die" list. But I didn't expect the prospect of death to come into the equation while doing the £6,000 trip.

We were into our second week at sea when we chugged out of Whalers Bay on the Antarctic Peninsula. I was on the top deck chatting to a wily 80-year-old naval captain when disaster struck at about 2.30pm.

One moment he was saying we were a little too close to the rocks, the next it sounded as though a bomb had exploded as our 12,000-tonne boat careered into the rocks.

Passengers were flung to the floor with the tables, chairs and smashed crockery as the boat juddered to a halt. The woman next to me clutched her badly injured wrist and screams could be heard all around. Then there was total silence.

People staggered to their feet, disorientated and in shock, wondering what had happened. Many passengers - a mix of all nationalities - were elderly and feared for their lives. Many thought about the Titanic: our boat had already tilted by 15 degrees, which suggested we were taking on water, and we were miles from any help.

Press reports that we simply ran aground were wide of the mark. The rocks gashed a hole the length of two double-decker buses in the side and oil was pouring out, causing untold damage to marine life.

We managed to reverse back into the bay, but could not have got much further.

What exactly happened? How had we managed to hit the rocks? Was there no one on the bridge? We passengers were impatient to be told.

Eventually the captain announced that we were not in any danger. He informed us that a sister ship, the MS Nordnorge, had been told to abandon its planned cruise and come to our rescue, though it was still a day's sailing away. A call went out to the Royal Navy. Luckily the HMS Endurance was in the area, although it would take 10 hours to reach us. In the meantime, we were offered free internet access and a satellite phone to tell loved ones we were alive and well.

When the Endurance arrived, divers were sent below to assess the situation and helicopters buzzed overhead. By the next morning, the Nordnorge had arrived and the decision was taken to abandon ship.

I rushed to the cabin to put on my life-jacket as small boats arrived to transfer passengers. Divers were in the water in case anyone fell in - you would last only a matter of minutes in waters of this temperature.

As we boarded the Nordnorge, we realised it was not just our cruise that was ruined. Many of its own passengers and staff were in tears. Some of us volunteered to help the overworked maids get makeshift beds ready.

I was one of the lucky ones who got a bed, but many were forced to spend three nights on mattresses on the floor.

A few sleepless nights later I finally arrived home, exhausted and unnerved by the whole experience. We had been handed a letter from Hurtigruten thanking us for our "good spirits" and promising compensation. I have yet to hear how much, but whatever it amounts to I'm not sure I'll be rushing to take a cruise again."

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 4:42 PM | Permalink

JESSIE BELL VERSUS AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, ET AL.
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
2007 La. App. LEXIS 151
February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured party challenged a decision from the Fifteenth Judicial District Court (Louisiana), which sustained an exception of prescription filed by defendant owner and dismissed a personal injury claim.

OVERVIEW: The injured party was transported by a vessel to a fixed platform. During transfer to the platform, the injured party fell due to the jerking of a personnel basket. Thereafter, he filed a personal injury action against the owner and others. An exception of prescription was sustained, and this appeal followed. In affirming, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not err by designating the judgment as a final judgment under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1915. The judgment dismissed the claims against the owner, but had no effect on the claims against the other parties. Next, the appellate court rejected the argument that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.S. § 1331, applied. The alleged negligence in this case occurred on navigable waters because the injured party never made it off the vessel and onto the fixed platform. Under general maritime law, the owner owed a duty of reasonable care toward those aboard the vessel, which included the provision of a safe manner of ingress and egress. Therefore, the claim was prescribed under the Uniform Statute of Limitations for Maritime Torts, 46 U.S.C.S. § 763(a).

OUTCOME: The decision was affirmed.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:26 PM | Permalink

JENGGI KALUOM, Individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STOLT OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9029
February 7, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to recover unpaid wages and overtime, plus damages, from defendant, an American corporation. The seaman filed a motion for notice to potential plaintiffs for collective action under 29 U.S.C.S. § 219(b) of the FLSA and a motion for immediate discovery. The corporation filed a motion for summary judgment.

OVERVIEW: The seaman, a Malaysian national who worked as a rigger and a pipe-facing machine operator on a foreign-flag vessel operating on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, alleged that he was employed by the corporation, which was the pro hac vice owner of the vessel. The seaman sought to certify a class of employees under the FLSA based on the corporation's failure to pay U.S. minimum wages or overtime pay. Because the seaman qualified under the Lusardi approach to representative actions under 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(b) of the FLSA, the court permitted him to send notice of the instant litigation to all current and former maritime workers who worked for the corporation since January 1, 2002. The barge on which the seaman had served was arguably an American vessel because the corporation controlled its operation. The court held that § 213(b) applied to American-flag vessels, regardless of their transient locations. Res judicata did not apply because a prior penalty wage suit between the parties did not raise FLSA claims. The three-year statute of limitations in 29 U.S.C.S. § 255(a) applied because the seaman pleaded a willful violation of the FLSA.

OUTCOME: The court denied the corporation's motion for summary judgment. The seaman's motion for notice was approved but modified to cover only riggers and pipe-facing machine operators. The seaman's motion for immediate discovery was approved but limited to the same class of seamen. The court ordered the corporation to provide the names and pay rates of similarly-situated seamen within 30 days.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:25 PM | Permalink

AMERICAN ROLL-ON ROLL-OFF CARRIER, LLC; AMERICAN AUTO LOGISTICS, INCORPORATED; WALLENIUS WILHELMSEN LINES AMERICAS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. P&O PORTS BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and I.T.O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, a wholly owned subsidiary of P&O PORTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 4154
February 26, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a carrier and related entities, filed an indemnification claim against defendant stevedore, seeking to recover amounts the carrier paid to owners of vehicles that were damaged when a tow tractor broke free of its lashings. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the stevedore, concluding that the claim was barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The carrier appealed.

OVERVIEW: An aircraft tow tractor, which had been loaded on the carrier's ship, broke free of its lashings and caused diesel fuel to contaminate other cargo. The carrier settled the cargo owners' claims and sought indemnification from the stevedore. The bill of lading issued by the carrier to a shipper contained a Himalaya Clause, which extended to the stevedore defenses that the Carriage of Goods By Sea Act provided to the carrier with respect to claims for cargo damage, and required cargo owners to bring claims for cargo damage within one year. The stevedoring contract between the carrier and the stevedore provided that the stevedore was entitled to all defenses available to the carrier under the bill of lading. Although the indemnification action was filed within the three-year limitation period established by the stevedoring agreement and Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, the stevedore argued that the indemnification claim was untimely under the one-year limitation period set forth in the bill of lading. The court held that the indemnification claim was timely because the bill of lading's one-year limitations period applied to cargo-damage claims and not to indemnity claims.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:24 PM | Permalink

BOTTIGLIERI DI NA VIGAZIONE SPA, Plaintiff, -against- TRADELINE LLC, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8278
February 6, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant ship charterer entered into a charter party with plaintiff disponent owner, chartering a ship to carry a shipment of corn. Plaintiff then entered into a charter party with the vessel's actual owner, to obtain use of the vessel. Plaintiff filed a suit against the charterer after the owner threatened to commence arbitration against it. The charterer moved to vacate an order of maritime attachment entered by the court.

OVERVIEW: The charter party contracts required disputes to be arbitrated in London under English law. The owner commenced arbitration against plaintiff after paying a substantial amount in damages to the recipient of the corn shipment. Plaintiff then filed its suit against the charterer. It successfully obtained an almost $ 3 million maritime attachment order. The charterer moved to vacate the attachment order. It argued that plaintiff was asserting an indemnity claim against it, that the claim was unripe because the owner's arbitration had not yet been resolved and that, therefore, plaintiff did not have a valid prima facie admiralty claim against it, which was required for issuance of an attachment under Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. B, E. Plaintiff countered that it was asserting a breach of contract claim and that the claim had accrued when the parties' charter party contract was breached. The court found, based on the allegations in the complaint, that plaintiff was asserting an indemnity claim against the charterer. That claim was not yet ripe under English law because plaintiff had not yet been ordered to reimburse the owner for the damages that it had paid.

OUTCOME: The court granted the charterer's motion to vacate the order of maritime attachment.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:24 PM | Permalink

TIMOTHY DOYLE, GREG HAGAMAN, BRIAN LAGUE, ANTHONY W. RICHARDS, and ERIC EDWARDS, Plaintiffs, v. HUNTRESS, INC., AND RELENTLESS, INC., Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12126
February 20, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, crewmen on two commercial fishing vessels, sued defendants, corporate owners of the commercial fishing vessels, and alleged that, during the years 1993 through 2000, the ships' owners failed to provide them with written wage agreements prior to their fishing voyages, as required by 46 U.S.C.S. § 10601. They further claimed statutory damages pursuant to 46 U.S.C.S. § 11107.

OVERVIEW: In the maritime context, a laches analysis utilized as a benchmark the limitations period contained in the most analogous statute. That limitations period was not per se dispositive, but rather courts relied upon it to establish burdens of proof and presumptions of timeliness and untimeliness. The pertinent statute in the instant case was R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-14-20, which applied a three-year period for wage claims made to the Rhode Island Director of Labor and Training. Accordingly, a presumption of laches attached to the crewmen's claims for trips made prior to August 31, 1998, and a presumption of timeliness attached to claims for trips after that date. Therefore, the court found that claims for statutory damages under 46 U.S.C.S. § 11107 on the grounds that the owners failed to provide them with written wage agreements prior to their fishing voyages, as required by 46 U.S.C.S. § 10601, dating from before August 31, 1998, were barred by laches in the cases of four crewmen and that the remaining crewmen were entitled to the total difference between what they earned and what a full share would have been for the trips.

OUTCOME: The court entered judgment against the owners and for three crewmen in the amounts of $ 2,381.74, plus 6 percent per annum interest calculated from the date suit was filed, $ 1,274.28, plus 6 percent per annum interest calculated from August 31, 2001, to the date of the order, $ 1,353.38, plus 6 percent per annum interest calculated from March 7, 2002 to the date of the order.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:23 PM | Permalink

WEEKS MARINE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Jose J. SALINAS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTH DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 866
February 7, 2007, Delivered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Cross-appeals were taken from a judgment of the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County (Texas), which awarded damages to appellee employee under the Jones Act for injuries sustained as a seaman acting in the course and scope of his employment. The trial court reduced the amount of compensatory damages awarded for the employee's unseaworthiness claim.

OVERVIEW: The employee was assigned to a dredge. While the dredge was at a repair facility, the employee injured his back carrying two batteries from a truck to the dredge. The jury found that the employee was a seaman, that the employer's negligence was a legal cause of the injury, that 70 percent of the negligence was attributable to the employer, and that the dredge was unseaworthy. The court held that the employee was a seaman while the dredge was undergoing repairs because his basic assignment did not change; he contributed to the function of the dredge by repairing it. The award for future economic loss was within the range of evidence presented at trial. There was sufficient evidence of unseaworthiness, including the employee's testimony that there was no dolly that he could use in performing the task. There was no duplication in the amounts awarded for tort damages and cure. Evidence of severe pain and inability to engage in everyday activities established mental anguish. Because no contributory negligence question was submitted as to the unseaworthiness claim, the employer waived the issue under Tex. R. Civ. P. 279; hence, the trial court erred in reducing the award by 30 percent.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's reduction of the amount of compensatory damages awarded for the unseaworthiness claim, rendered judgment that the employee was entitled to recover the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury, and affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:22 PM | Permalink

KEVIN SCHEURING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAYLOR BROTHERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3237
February 14, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sought review of a summary judgment from the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in favor of defendant employer in plaintiff's action seeking to recover for his personal injuries as a "seaman" under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, or, in the alternative, for negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA).

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff, who worked as a crane operator on a derrick barge owned by defendant, slipped and injured his back while attempting to lift a ramp that was used to board the barge. The district court determine that plaintiff was not a "seaman" because the nature of his employment was not substantially connected to the vessel and, therefore, he could not sue under the Jones Act. The court, however, found that the movements of the vessel, albeit relatively minor, and the sea-based duties of plaintiff during those movements, although ancillary to his core duty as a crane operator, raised genuine issues of material fact as to plaintiff's "seaman" status. As to the LHWCA claim, the district court determined that the alleged negligence in the positioning of the ramp did not implicate the duty owed by defendant as a vessel owner and, therefore, plaintiff could not sue under 33 U.S.C.S. § 905(b). The court, however, found that plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact with respect to the characterization of the ramp and whether defendant discharged its turnover duty by providing a ramp-float-skiff means of access to the barge.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to both claims. The court remanded the action for further proceedings.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:21 PM | Permalink

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. DARCE CARLISLE, Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
2007 Fla. LEXIS 287; 32 Fla. L. Weekly S 81
February 15, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Third District Court of Appeal (Florida) entered a decision in a case involving whether defendant ship owner could be vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of a ship board physician committed on a ship's passenger that reversed the trial court's summary judgment grant for the ship owner and found such negligence could be imputed to the ship owner. It then certified that question as one of great public importance.

OVERVIEW: A family went on a cruise. The 14-year-old daughter fell ill. The ship physician saw the daughter several times and repeatedly advised the family that she was suffering the flu, and did not have appendicitis. The family decided to discontinue their cruise and returned home, where the daughter was diagnosed as having a ruptured appendix. Her appendix was removed, but the daughter was rendered sterile from the rupture and subsequent infection. The parents of the daughter sued the ship board physician and ship owner alleging that the ship board physician committed medical malpractice, and that the ship owner was vicariously liable for such negligence. The trial court found that the ship owner was entitled to summary judgment on the vicarious liability question. On appeal, the district court of appeal found that the ship board physician was an agent of the ship owner whose negligence should be imputed to the ship owner. After the vicarious liability question was certified as one of great importance, the state supreme court found that the federal maritime law almost uniformly held that a ship owner is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a ship board physician.

OUTCOME: On the certified question of great public importance, the state supreme court quashed the decision of the district court of appeal and held that the ship owner was not vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the medical negligence of the ship board physician.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 12:19 PM | Permalink