Brent Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
683 F. App'x 786
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brent Wolf was injured on a Costa Rica zip-line shore excursion operated by OCT; he sued OCT and cruise line Celebrity Cruises.
- Wolf bought the excursion through Celebrity onboard; his cruise ticket and the shore-excursion ticket disclaimed that excursion providers were independent contractors, not Celebrity agents.
- OCT provided a liability waiver stating it owned and operated the zip-line; Wolf alleges inadequate instruction, thin gloves, and a missing bumper caused his injuries.
- The district court dismissed OCT for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Celebrity on all remaining claims; Wolf appealed.
- Key factual record: Celebrity vetted and repeatedly used OCT for years, received no prior safety complaints in the record, and had a Tour Operator Agreement vesting operational control in OCT and disclaiming third-party rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over OCT (general and specific) | OCT has substantial Florida contacts (Miami mailing address, related Florida entity, contracts with Celebrity) supporting general or specific jurisdiction | OCT is a Costa Rica operator using a Miami mail‑forwarding address; no continuous/systematic contacts or Florida‑based torts; Tour Operator Agreement control remains with OCT | No personal jurisdiction: contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction; no connexity for specific jurisdiction; jurisdictional discovery request properly denied |
| Rule 4(k)(2) (nationwide contacts) | Aggregated U.S. contacts support jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) | Plaintiff did not show federal‑law claim basis or sufficient nationwide contacts/due process compliance | Not established: plaintiff failed to address due process prong or plead adequate U.S. contacts |
| Negligence: duty to warn / negligent hiring/retention | Celebrity had affirmative duties to inspect/warn and should have known about OCT risks (industry standards/ACCT) | Celebrity conducted selection vetting, relied on OCT’s safety reputation, had no notice of problems, and disclaimers/agreements limited control | Summary judgment affirmed: no notice of dangerous condition so no duty to warn; plaintiff failed to show industry standard or evidence that Celebrity knew OCT was incompetent |
| Vicarious liability theories (actual/apparent agency, joint venture) and third‑party beneficiary breach | Celebrity controlled or represented OCT (agency or joint venture) and Tour Operator Agreement intended to benefit passengers | Agreement expressly reserved control to OCT, disclaimed third‑party rights, and payment/operations show lack of control or joint ownership | Summary judgment affirmed: no actual or apparent agency, no joint venture, and contract expressly disclaims third‑party beneficiary rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.) (personal‑jurisdiction prima facie burden and affidavit interplay)
- Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff burden to establish jurisdictional facts against contradictory affidavits)
- Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir.) (foreign shore‑operator contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction — ‘‘at home’’ standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation/principal place of business except exceptional cases)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.) (maritime negligence principles and carrier duty to warn)
- Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir.) (agency analysis under maritime law)
- Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir.) (third‑party beneficiary standard)