Cruise ship operator was entitled to summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in a negligence action for injuries sustained during a shore excursion because operator had no duty to warn about obvious danger that dune buggies might be involved...
JOHN MORRELL & CO., Plaintiff, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9575
February 8, 2008, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an employer, brought an action against defendant, a cruise ship operator, asserting claims for subrogation or reimbursement of worker's compensation benefits made to an employee, who was injured during a shore excursion while on a employer-sponsored cruise. The employer alleged claims of negligence and negligent supervision against the operator, and the operator filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
OVERVIEW: The injured employee had purchased a ticket for a dune buggy shore excursion sponsored by a tour company having an oral agreement with the operator to provide the excursion. The dune buggy accident occurred when a moped struck the dune buggy causing the dune buggy to roll over. Both of the negligence claims against the operator were premised on the an alleged failure to warn that the dune buggy was dangerous and might be involved in an accident with another vehicle. The court granted the operator's motion for summary judgment. Applying Florida law, the court found that the operator had no duty to warn about the obvious danger that the dune buggies used in the excursion, like automobiles, might be involved in collisions with other vehicles driven carelessly by others. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine did not apply because there was no evidence that the operator owned, leased, or otherwise had a property interest in any of the vehicles involved in the accident occurring the shore excursion. Finally, the employer failed to show that even if there had been a breach of a duty to warn by the operator, the breach was the proximate cause of the employee's injuries.
OUTCOME: The court granted the operator's motion for final summary judgment and by separate order entered judgment for the operator.
