Chaparro v. Carnival Corp.
693 F.3d 1333
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants Ceferino Perez, Aida Esther Chaparro, Liz Marie Perez Chaparro's estate representatives, and Amilkar Perez Chaparro sue Carnival for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from Liz Marie's death on a Carnival cruise in St. Thomas.
- Appellants allege a Carnival employee encouraged Liz Marie's father and brother to visit Coki Beach and that Carnival knew of crime, gang violence, and public shootings near Coki Beach.
- The group disembarked July 12, 2010, visited Coki Beach independently of ship excursions, and were trapped in bus traffic near a gang-related funeral where Liz Marie was fatally shot.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) as conclusory; Appellants were given leave to amend but chose to appeal instead.
- The Eleventh Circuit reverses, holding the complaint states plausible negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn passengers | Carnival owed a duty to warn of known dangers in ports of call. | There is no duty to warn beyond ordinary care under the circumstances and not to expand liability. | Carnival has a duty to warn under maritime negligence standards; duty established. |
| Sufficiency of pleading under Iqbal | Complaint alleges specific facts showing Carnival’s warning failures and knowledge of dangers; plausibly pleaded. | Dismissal proper if allegations are conclusory with no factual support. | Complaint plausibly states a negligence claim; not merely conclusory. |
| Foreseeability standard at pleading stage | Foreseeability of harm supports duty and breach; allegations show known risks. | Foreseeability is a merits issue, not pleading stage. | Foreseeability is evaluated post-discovery; pled facts support potential foreseeability. |
| NIED claim in maritime context | Since negligence is stated, NIED is recoverable under the zone-of-danger doctrine. | NIED requires an adequately pled underlying negligence and specific harm. | NIED claim survives because underlying negligence is pled and zone-of-danger applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc., 616 F.2d 825 (5th Cir.1980) (duty and foreseeability in maritime negligence)
- Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir.2008) (elements of negligence and duty)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (Sup. Ct.1959) (shipowner owes reasonable care to non-crew aboard)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.1989) (ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances; notice)
- Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., S.A., 475 So.2d 248 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (duty to warn beyond debarkation in frequented areas)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (Sup. Ct.1994) (zone-of-danger approach for emotional distress)
- Williams v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 403 (S.D. Fla.1995) (zone-of-danger framework in maritime NIED)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.2009) (pleading must state plausible claims)