startraveler Posted November 29, 2009 #126 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Highlights by me: http://openjurist.org/17/f3d/11 This appeal tests the applicability of a one year limitation provision in a passenger cruise ticket to an injury suffered by a passenger while ashore, on hotel property owned by the same entity which owned and operated the cruise vessel. 2 In the spring of 1990, plaintiffs, Marian and Leonard Rams, residents of Massachusetts, embarked on a Caribbean cruise on a ship owned by defendant, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd., a Florida corporation. On April 6, 1990, while on a shore excursion in Haiti at a tourist resort owned by defendant, Mrs. Rams fell on a walkway, sustaining injuries. A little over two years later, both Rams filed suit, alleging that defendant "negligently maintained a defective and dangerous condition" on the walkway, and seeking damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. 3 On the strength of an affidavit containing a copy of a ticket contract identical to that given to plaintiffs, defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs had failed to institute suit within the one year period allowed by the contract.1 The Rams argued that their claim was not covered by this time limitation, and urged the court to apply the three year statute of limitations for tort actions provided by Massachusetts law, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 260 Sec. 2A (1992). 4 The district court engaged in a maritime tort law analysis and, apparently on the assumption that the complaint alleged a failure to warn, concluded that a carrier's duty to warn passengers of on-shore hazards was so intimately related to traditional carrier-passenger relationships that the tort in this case was maritime in nature even though occurring at the resort. It then disavowed part of the ticket contract exempting the carrier for liability for off-the-ship injuries as being in contravention of public policy; noted that the ticket's one year limitation provision complied with governing law, as it met the statutory requirement of 46 App.U.S.C. Sec. 183b(a) (making it unlawful for owners of passenger-transport ships to provide a statute of limitations of less than one year for institution of suits for loss of life or bodily injury), and the "reasonable communicativeness" standard applicable to contracts of passage, see, e.g., Lousararian v. Royal Caribbean Corp., 951 F.2d 7, 8-9 (1st Cir.1991); and applied the limitation provision to grant summary judgment for defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcguy Posted November 29, 2009 #127 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Highlights by me: http://openjurist.org/17/f3d/11 This appeal tests the applicability of a one year limitation provision in a passenger cruise ticket to an injury suffered by a passenger while ashore, on hotel property owned by the same entity which owned and operated the cruise vessel. 2 In the spring of 1990, plaintiffs, Marian and Leonard Rams, residents of Massachusetts, embarked on a Caribbean cruise on a ship owned by defendant, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd., a Florida corporation. On April 6, 1990, while on a shore excursion in Haiti at a tourist resort owned by defendant, Mrs. Rams fell on a walkway, sustaining injuries. A little over two years later, both Rams filed suit, alleging that defendant "negligently maintained a defective and dangerous condition" on the walkway, and seeking damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium. 3 On the strength of an affidavit containing a copy of a ticket contract identical to that given to plaintiffs, defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs had failed to institute suit within the one year period allowed by the contract.1 The Rams argued that their claim was not covered by this time limitation, and urged the court to apply the three year statute of limitations for tort actions provided by Massachusetts law, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 260 Sec. 2A (1992). 4 The district court engaged in a maritime tort law analysis and, apparently on the assumption that the complaint alleged a failure to warn, concluded that a carrier's duty to warn passengers of on-shore hazards was so intimately related to traditional carrier-passenger relationships that the tort in this case was maritime in nature even though occurring at the resort. It then disavowed part of the ticket contract exempting the carrier for liability for off-the-ship injuries as being in contravention of public policy; noted that the ticket's one year limitation provision complied with governing law, as it met the statutory requirement of 46 App.U.S.C. Sec. 183b(a) (making it unlawful for owners of passenger-transport ships to provide a statute of limitations of less than one year for institution of suits for loss of life or bodily injury), and the "reasonable communicativeness" standard applicable to contracts of passage, see, e.g., Lousararian v. Royal Caribbean Corp., 951 F.2d 7, 8-9 (1st Cir.1991); and applied the limitation provision to grant summary judgment for defendant. Very nice post Startraveler. So the moral of the story is if you're going to make a claim, do so within the statute of limitations. For those who read this to say the cruise line has no liability, that was not the basis of this decision. Rather, the decision is purely based on statute of limitation issues and governing law (maritime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruzincurt Posted November 29, 2009 #128 Share Posted November 29, 2009 The difference is, IMO, the people tripped on a defective sidewalk on the cruise line's property. Getting held up in a robbery off property is not the same. The cruise line was "negligent" in having a defective sidewalk. How can they be responsible for actions of criminals in public spaces not under the cruise line's control? How can they be found negligent for the actions of criminals in public places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsPete Posted November 29, 2009 #129 Share Posted November 29, 2009 When we visited New Orleans, my husband was attacked by a (probably mentally ill) homeless person as we walked down a busy, tourist-filled street -- it wasn't even a questionable area like Bourbon Street. Anyway, my husband was injured. Who owes him compensation? Sometimes things just happen. Doesn't mean anyone else -- other than the criminal -- is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
startraveler Posted November 29, 2009 #130 Share Posted November 29, 2009 To me - and I'm not a lawyer - it seems to me that if the carrier, e.g., the cruise line, has knowledge of "on-shore hazards" - such as robberies of cruise passengers - then the cruise line is responsible for the safety of passengers. And if the cruise line is not responsible, then why do cruise ships divert from ports where there's government unrest - and that includes diverting from Labadee, which is a private area walled off from the rest of Haiti? Why not just dock where scheduled to, and tell the pax, "Hey, we're just responsible from bringing you from Point A to Point B. Yes, there's sounds of gunfire and people burning things in the street, but it's your choice, and your responsibility, if you get off the ship." (And granted I'm saying that facetiously, but it is a real question I have.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Jake Posted November 29, 2009 #131 Share Posted November 29, 2009 When we visited New Orleans, my husband was attacked by a (probably mentally ill) homeless person as we walked down a busy, tourist-filled street -- it wasn't even a questionable area like Bourbon Street. Anyway, my husband was injured. Who owes him compensation? Sometimes things just happen. Doesn't mean anyone else -- other than the criminal -- is to blame. was it on an excursion booked by the hotel? If not, no comparison :cj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
startraveler Posted November 29, 2009 #132 Share Posted November 29, 2009 If an accident does occur, injured passengers can seek damages from an insured tour operator. To be successful in a suit against a cruise line, however, one of three conditions has to exist, says Miami attorney Charles Lipcon, who specializes in maritime law: "If the ticket for the excursion was sold on board, if the cruise line had knowledge of a known danger, or if they [the cruise line] in fact operate the excursion." http://www.lipcon.com/news_archive/news_article73.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Jake Posted November 29, 2009 #133 Share Posted November 29, 2009 If an accident does occur, injured passengers , one of three conditions has to exist, says Miami attorney Charles Lipcon, who specializes in maritime law: "If the ticket for the excursion was sold on board, if the cruise line had knowledge of a known danger, or if they [the cruise line] in fact operate the excursion." The cruise line charges a premium for the excursions over booking directly with the tour operator which should more than cover their cost for insurance against claims :cj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruzincurt Posted November 30, 2009 #134 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Sounds like 1 out of 3 apply here; they sold the ticket. So if a ship docks in Key West, a passenger is robbed in public, it's the ships fault? By that logic, the cruise line should, to protect their liability, then warn anyone going ashore in any port. We all know that crime can and does occurs everywhere, otherwise there would be no need for a police department in Key West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcguy Posted November 30, 2009 #135 Share Posted November 30, 2009 When we visited New Orleans, my husband was attacked by a (probably mentally ill) homeless person as we walked down a busy, tourist-filled street -- it wasn't even a questionable area like Bourbon Street. Anyway, my husband was injured. Who owes him compensation? Sometimes things just happen. Doesn't mean anyone else -- other than the criminal -- is to blame. Bourbon is one of the LEAST questionable streets in NOLA. And your analogy is well, not an analogy. It makes no sense with respect to the discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcguy Posted November 30, 2009 #136 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Sounds like 1 out of 3 apply here; they sold the ticket. So if a ship docks in Key West, a passenger is robbed in public, it's the ships fault? By that logic, the cruise line should, to protect their liability, then warn anyone going ashore in any port. We all know that crime can and does occurs everywhere, otherwise there would be no need for a police department in Key West. Just go to the Department of State website> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_989.html Why can't the cruise lines mirror this information for the benefit of their customers??? This would go a long way in diffusing potential liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPete Posted December 2, 2009 #137 Share Posted December 2, 2009 SO glad to see at least three lines taking a stand. Kudos to them! On November 30th, The Associated Press reported that Norwegian Cruise Line, Disney Cruise Line and Carnival have put a hold on excursions within Nassau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykiddiewinks Posted December 2, 2009 #138 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Just logged on the Royal Caribbean and went to our bookings we are due to be in Nassau Christmas week and it looks like you can still book the Segway tour!! We did this back in September and I was just curious to see if it had been removed - obviously not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruzincurt Posted December 3, 2009 #139 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Just go to the Department of State website> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_989.html Why can't the cruise lines mirror this information for the benefit of their customers??? This would go a long way in diffusing potential liability. Why would the cruise line want to publish information that might discourage you from taking a cruise where they are going? Why can't people just take responsibility for themselves? Does someone have to print it out and hand it to them? I'm so tired of people not taking responsibility for themselves and blaming someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcguy Posted December 3, 2009 #140 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Why would the cruise line want to publish information that might discourage you from taking a cruise where they are going? Why can't people just take responsibility for themselves? Does someone have to print it out and hand it to them? I'm so tired of people not taking responsibility for themselves and blaming someone else. Why can't they (cruise lines) if they want to limit liability? No matter how hard you try, you can't avoid reality. I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves. It's just the litigious society we live in that requires that those with the deepest pockets take extraordinary care in trying to avoid litigation or at least minimize their downside. Sad, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Hankie Posted December 3, 2009 #141 Share Posted December 3, 2009 SO glad to see at least three lines taking a stand. Kudos to them! Will they stop going to New york City next? Nah,nobody ever gets mugged there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPete Posted December 3, 2009 #142 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Will they stop going to New york City next? Nah,nobody ever gets mugged there! There's not a lot of ships that make a stop in NYC, but I'm not aware of any cruisers held up at gunpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jleq Posted December 11, 2009 #143 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Arrest made: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/2009-12-11-man-charged-segway-robbery_N.htm?csp=34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.