Gary Reming v. Holland America Line Inc
662 F. App'x 507
9th Cir.2016Background
- Gary Reming fell at Cliff Diver’s Plaza in Mazatlán during a shore excursion booked through Holland America Line (HAL) and operated by Tropical Tours; he sustained serious injuries.
- Reming sued HAL (and initially Tropical Tours) in Washington federal court alleging negligence under maritime law, negligent misrepresentation, and deceit; Tropical Tours was dismissed for lack of service.
- District court granted summary judgment for HAL on all claims; Reming appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Relevant facts: HAL contracted with Tropical Tours for years; HAL reviewed daily security/safety files (news, State Dept., parent company reports) and had no reports of plaza hazards; thousands of prior visitors had toured the site without incidents.
- The Tropical Tours guide knew of some pavement issues but did not volunteer that information; local vendors/cliff diver knew of deterioration but had no ties to HAL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn / inspect for off-ship hazards | HAL should have known of plaza danger from local reports and vendor knowledge and thus had duty to warn/inspect | Under maritime law HAL owes only reasonable care off ship and must have actual or constructive notice to owe a duty to warn; HAL had no such notice | HAL owed no duty to warn/inspect because it lacked actual or constructive notice; summary judgment for HAL |
| Constructive notice standard | HAL should be charged with knowledge of local newspaper reports and local persons' awareness | No authority requires cruise lines to monitor every local paper or contact local vendors; HAL relied on comprehensive safety files that showed no risk | No constructive notice shown; HAL’s routine sources did not report the hazard |
| Negligent selection/retention of Tropical Tours | HAL failed to properly select/retain Tropical Tours and did not investigate competence | Tropical Tours had long, incident-free operation; HAL periodically monitored performance and found no safety concerns | No evidence Tropical Tours lacked competence or that HAL knew of incompetence; summary judgment for HAL |
| Negligent misrepresentation / deceit (website safety claims) | HAL’s website representations (operates its own tours; highest safety) were false and plaintiff relied on them | Reming testified he assumed HAL did not operate the tour and thus did not rely; record shows no pattern to render safety claim false | Reming did not rely on website about operator; single incident does not render safety claim false; summary judgment for HAL |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuels v. Holland Am. Line-USA Inc., 656 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2011) (cruise line owes reasonable care to passengers off ship; duty to warn requires actual or constructive notice)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (establishes vessel owner’s duty of reasonable care for passengers)
- McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- L. B. Foster Co. v. Hurnblad, 418 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1969) (elements for negligent selection/retention of independent contractor)
- Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Baik, 55 P.3d 619 (Wash. 2002) (elements of negligent misrepresentation/deceit)