Joann Yusko v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 4f4th1164

Passenger Joann Yusko (age 64) danced in an onboard "Dancing with the Stars" event and was paired with crewmember/professional dancer Michael Kaskie.
During a spin, Kaskie allegedly released Yusko’s hands, she fell backward, hit her head, and later was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.
Yusko sued shipowner NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., alleging (1) direct negligence by the carrier and (2) negligence attributable to Kaskie (vicarious liability/respondeat superior).
The district court granted summary judgment for NCL, applying Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line and holding that a plaintiff must show the shipowner had actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit held the district court applied the wrong standard: the notice requirement governs direct-liability (premises/condition) claims but does not apply when the claim is vicarious liability for an employee’s negligence.
Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with holding that notice is not required to impose vicarious liability for employee-caused negligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a passenger must prove the shipowner had actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition to recover under a maritime negligence theory based on an employee’s negligence (vicarious liability)	Yusko: Keefe’s notice rule applies only to direct-liability claims; vicarious liability does not require notice — NCL is liable for employee negligence even absent notice	NCL: Keefe’s notice requirement applies to all maritime negligence claims against shipowners, including vicarious-liability claims	Court: Notice requirement applies to direct-liability (physical-condition) claims but not to vicarious-liability claims; reversed and remanded

Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (established that shipowner must have actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition for direct-negligence premises claims)
Everett v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 912 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1990) (applied Keefe notice rule to a trip-over-threshold premises claim)
Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2014) (approved vicarious-liability claims for onboard medical negligence; treated vicarious liability separately from direct-duty/notice analysis)
Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (held shipowners strictly liable for crew sexual assaults; distinguished Keefe as a physical-condition case)
Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (applied notice requirement to duty to warn passengers of known off-ship dangers)
K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 931 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2019) (found allegations sufficient to satisfy notice requirement where carrier allegedly knew of onboard violence/sexual assaults)
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2003) (confirming that an employer may be held vicariously liable for employee negligence even without the employer’s personal fault)
Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (discussed general duty of care owed by shipowners to passengers)