Admiralty
| Publication year | 2013 |
Admiralty
Colin A. McRae
Edgar M. Smith
Kate C. Lawson
[Page 829]
In Wajnstat v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the decision of the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying the cruise line's motion for partial summary judgment and granting the injured passenger's motion for partial summary judgment as to the cruise line's limitation of liability defense.2 Wajnstat was a passenger on board the Oceania cruise ship who became ill and required medical attention during a cruise from Istanbul, Turkey to Athens, Greece. After several surgeries, Wajnstat filed suit claiming that "Oceania negligently hired, retained, and supervised the ship's doctor."3 Oceania raised as
[Page 830]
an affirmative defense the limitation of liability provisions of the Athens Convention,4 as referenced in the cruise ticket contract.5
Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment as to the reasonableness of the limitation of liability provision, the district court concluded that the limitation of liability provision was unenforceable, and Oceania appealed.6 The Eleventh Circuit never reached the issue of the Athens Convention and the enforceability of the limitation of liability provision.7 Although both parties consented to the Eleventh Circuit's appellate jurisdiction, the court disagreed and dismissed the appeal.8 The general rule is that "final judgments of a district court are appealable to the United States Courts of Appeals, whereas interlocutory orders are not."9 However, "[i]n admiralty cases . . . we have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals 'determining the rights and liabilities of the parties'" under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).10 Relying on a prior United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion,11 the Eleventh Circuit held the following:
If, as Ford Motor Co. held, a district court does not determine the "rights and liabilities of the parties" when it decides the applicability of a statutory limitation of liability, it also does not determine "the rights and liabilities of the parties" when it determines the applicability of a contractual limitation of liability.12
The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.13
[Page 831]
After a busy slate of arbitration clause-related appeals in 2011, the Eleventh Circuit continues to hear appeals on the enforceability of seafarers' arbitration clauses, even post Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.,14 and Bautista v. Star Cruises.15 In a new case similar to Lindo and the many before it, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida's order compelling arbitration of a Carnival employee's complaint for failure to provide medical care.16 Kenneth Fernandes sued his employer, Carnival Corp., in Florida state court. Carnival removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Seafarer's Agreement signed by Fernandes upon his employment. Fernandes then appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration.17
The crew member plaintiff, relying on the Eleventh Circuit's Thomas v. Carnival Corp.18 opinion from 2009, argued that the arbitration provision was invalid as against public policy.19 However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the only defenses available to enforcement of an arbitration provision are, "fraud, mistake, duress, and waiver."20 Further, the Eleventh Circuit "also rejected Plaintiff's argument about Thomas: 'to the extent Thomas allowed the plaintiff seaman to prevail on a new public policy defense under [the Convention],21 Thomas violates Bautista and our prior panel precedent rule.'"22 The Eleventh Circuit further ruled that the plaintiff's Jones Act and maintenance and cure claims were subject to arbitration as those claims arose as a result of his employment.23
Prior to Fernandes, the Eleventh Circuit addressed another arbitration provision in Arauz v. Carnival Corp.24 Arauz is worth discussing in this Survey, but its substantive principles do not require extensive review due to the procedural posture and timing of the appeal. The
[Page 832]
Eleventh Circuit decided Lindo while the Arauz appeal was pending.25 In addressing the appeal, Arauz essentially acknowledged that Lindo foreclosed his public policy argument.26 Further, Arauz acknowledged that the Eleventh Circuit panel could not overrule Lindo.27 As such, the Eleventh Circuit held "Lindo requires us to affirm the order compelling arbitration."28
In Chaparro v. Carnival Corp.,29 the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Southern District of Florida's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.).30 The district court had dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint despite a very unfortunate fact pattern. While the Carnival cruise ship M/V VICTORY was in port at St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, a Carnival employee recommended the Chaparro family visit a local beach. After visiting the local beach, the family was caught in a gang-related shooting during which one member of the family was struck by a bullet and killed. The family sued Carnival under a failure to warn theory, but the district court granted Carnival's motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).31
In order to analyze whether the appellants had satisfied the pleading standard, the Eleventh Circuit first had to determine whether Carnival actually "has a duty to warn passengers of known dangers at ports of call."32 The court began by acknowledging that a maritime negligence case relies on the general principles of negligence law.33 In order to sufficiently plead negligence, both maritime and non-maritime plaintiffs must "allege that (1) the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach actually and proximately caused the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm."34 The Eleventh Circuit went on to define the duty in a maritime context as, "'reasonable care under the circumstances, a standard which requires, as a prerequisite to imposing
[Page 833]
liability, that the carrier have had actual or constructive notice of the risk-creating condition, at least where . . . the menace is one commonly encountered on land and not clearly linked to nautical adventure.'"35 The Eleventh Circuit also cited a non-binding Florida immediate appellate court decision where the state court held "a cruise line owes its passengers a duty to warn of known dangers beyond the point of debarkation in places where passengers are invited or reasonably expected to visit."36 Based upon the defined duty, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the appellants' allegations in the complaint—"that Carnival was aware of gang-related violence and crime, including public shootings, in St. Thomas generally and near Coki Beach specifically"—were sufficiently pled.37
In Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.,38 the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal of a personal injury matter based on a forum selection clause contained in a cruise ticket.39 The complaint was filed by the estate of Royal Caribbean passenger Tore Myhra, a resident of England, who fell ill and died while onboard a Royal Caribbean vessel. After Myhra passed away, his estate filed suit against Royal Caribbean in the Southern District of Florida. Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss the complaint based upon improper venue under F.R.C.R 12(b)(3). Royal Caribbean's basis for its motion to dismiss was the forum selection clause included in the ticket contract, which required that all personal injury claims be litigated in the courts of England and Wales, and be governed by English law.40 The district court dismissed the complaint and the passenger's estate appealed arguing that the forum selection clause should be invalidated for two reasons: (1) it is against the statutorily expressed policy of the United States; and (2) its terms were not reasonably communicated to the Myhras.41
The deceased passenger's wife booked the cruise through an English travel agency. The terms and conditions of the contract were provided to the passengers both in an invoice from the travel agency and in the
[Page 834]
travel documents provided by Royal Caribbean.42 The terms and conditions limited Royal Caribbean's liability pursuant to the Athens Convention.43 The travel documents expressly provided, "'We both agree that any dispute, claim or other matter arising out of or in connection with your contract or your holiday with us will only be dealt with by the Courts of England and Wales.'"44 On appeal, the Myhra estate pointed to 46 U.S.C. § 30509(a),45 and argued that the forum selection clause should not be enforced by federal courts as it is against the public policy of the United States.46 The Eleventh Circuit pointed to the express language of the statute, which expressly prohibits limitations on liability in certain situations but does not prohibit the use of a forum selection clause.47 The passenger's estate argued that the ticket contract essentially limits the liability of any injured parties by including a forum selection clause.48 After in-depth analysis, the Eleventh Circuit returned to the plain language of the statute, and "think[s] the appropriate course is to interpret the statute to its plain language unless Congress, by appropriate amendment, makes policy choices on the contours of choice-of-forum clauses that involve the Country's international commercial relationships."49 The court of appeals ruled that 46 U.S.C. § 30509(a) did not prohibit the forum-selection clause at issue.50
The Myhra estate next argued that the forum selection clause should be invalidated because it...
To continue reading
Request your trial