History
  • No items yet
midpage
Heller v. Carnival Corp.
191 F. Supp. 3d 1352
S.D. Fla.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • On January 1, 2015, Heller (plaintiff) purchased a Carnival-sponsored "See Nassau the Fun Way on a Segway!" shore excursion while aboard the Carnival Magic and was injured in a collision on the tour.
  • Carnival marketed, sold tickets for, recommended, and facilitated the excursion via its website, brochures, and onboard excursion desk; the actual operator was Caribbean Segway Tours and/or other excursion entities (Excursion Entities).
  • Plaintiff alleges Carnival represented the tour was safe and that she relied on Carnival’s representations and its role in arranging the excursion.
  • Claims against Carnival: negligence (Count I), agency-based negligence/apparent agency (Count III), joint-venture-based negligence (Count IV), and third-party beneficiary contract claim (Count V); separate negligence claim (Count II) is against the Excursion Entities only.
  • Carnival moved to dismiss; the court considered whether the complaint plausibly alleged Carnival’s duties and relationships that could support liability and applied maritime/admiralty pleading standards.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether negligence claim (duty to warn / reasonable care) is plausibly pleaded Carnival sold/marketed the excursion, inspected or should have inspected, represented it was safe, and thus had notice and breached duty Carnival lacked actual or constructive notice of any specific dangerous condition; dangers (Segway collision risk) are open and obvious; plaintiff seeks heightened duties Denied dismissal as to Count I — failure to warn adequately pleaded; open-and-obvious defense and notice questions reserved for later stages
Negligent misrepresentation (Rule 9(b)) Alleged Carnival represented the tour was safe and Segways easy to operate Statements not pleaded with particularity (who, when, where, content) as required by Rule 9(b) Paragraph alleging negligent misrepresentation (¶32p) stricken without prejudice for failure to meet Rule 9(b)
Apparent agency / agency by estoppel Carnival’s marketing, sale of tickets, use of logo, recommendations, and passenger reliance created appearance Carnival authorized operators Carnival furnished ticket/contract disclaimers and says operators are independent contractors; submits ticket exemplar Denied dismissal as to Count III — allegations sufficient to state apparent agency; court declined to consider ticket exemplar attached to motion
Joint venture-based liability Carnival and operators shared profits, marketed and arranged the tour, exercised joint control and shared interest/losses Agreement/contract terms (submitted) show independent-contractor relationship precluding joint venture Denied dismissal as to Count IV — complaint plausibly pleads joint venture; court did not consider contract attached to reply that purportedly negates venture
Third-party beneficiary (contract) Carnival–operator contract required operator insurance and reasonable care, evidencing intent to benefit passengers like plaintiff Contract does not clearly and primarily intend to benefit passengers; no specific contractual intent pleaded Count V dismissed without prejudice — plaintiff failed to allege specific, clearly expressed contractual intent to primarily/directly benefit her

Key Cases Cited

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
  • Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (shipowner owes passengers reasonable care)
  • Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (failure-to-warn plausibly pleaded where cruise line monitors port risks)
  • Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (carrier liability requires actual or constructive notice of risk-creating condition)
  • Belik v. Carlson Travel Group, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (elements of maritime negligence claim and discussion of open-and-obvious danger)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Heller v. Carnival Corp.
Court Name: District Court, S.D. Florida
Date Published: Mar 16, 2016
Citation: 191 F. Supp. 3d 1352
Docket Number: CASE NO. 15-24464-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan
Court Abbreviation: S.D. Fla.