K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
931 F.3d 1041
11th Cir.2019Background
- Minor passenger K.T. (aged 15–17) alleges that on a 2015 Royal Caribbean cruise several adult male passengers bought her multiple alcoholic drinks, rendered her obviously incapacitated, and then led her to a cabin where she was brutally assaulted and gang raped. Crew allegedly observed these events and security cameras captured them but took no action.
- K.T. sued Royal Caribbean for negligence based on (1) failure to monitor/enforce policies and intervene to prevent service of alcohol to a minor and to protect an obviously incapacitated passenger, and (2) failure to warn passengers of known risks of sexual assault aboard its ships. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo, accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and asks whether the claims are plausible and supported by foreseeability and causation allegations.
- Complaint alleges Royal Caribbean had actual or constructive notice of prior passenger-on-passenger sexual assaults (including incidents involving minors and alcohol) and that its sale of large quantities of alcohol enhanced the risk; it further alleges the carrier failed to promulgate/enforce adequate policies or intervene when reasonable crewmembers would have.
- The court also (in a concurring special opinion) took judicial notice of federal Cruise Line Incident Reports and congressional findings showing numerous reported sexual assaults on cruise ships, including 20 reports by Royal Caribbean from 2010–2015, reinforcing that the danger was known or foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint pleads breach of duty of care by carrier for passenger-on-passenger sexual assault | Royal Caribbean owed ordinary reasonable care, knew/should have known of assaults and alcohol-facilitated risks, failed to monitor/enforce policies or intervene | Imposing liability would amount to strict liability or making cruise lines insurers; carrier not an insurer | Court: Allegations plausibly plead breach; duty existed given foreseeability and knowledge; decline of strict-liability concern because claim is negligence-based |
| Whether complaint pleads causation (proximate and but-for) between carrier’s omissions and K.T.’s injuries | Royal Caribbean’s failures to prevent/stop provision of alcohol and to intervene were a but-for and proximate cause of the assault | Causation insufficient and speculative | Court: Allegations support plausible but-for and proximate causation at pleading stage |
| Whether carrier had a duty to warn passengers (including minors) about on-board sexual-assault risks | Carrier had duty to warn of known dangers aboard ship; failure to warn deprived passengers of taking precautions | Warning not required or would not have prevented harm | Court: Allegations of knowledge/foreseeability and failure to warn sufficiently plead negligence-based warning claim |
| Whether dismissal at Rule 12(b)(6) stage was appropriate | Complaint’s factual allegations and public incident data make claims plausible and warrant discovery | District court correctly dismissed for failure to state claim | Court: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings; dismissal erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.) (motion-to-dismiss de novo review and plausibility standard)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.) (maritime negligence and duty to warn principles for cruise passengers)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.) (carrier owes ordinary reasonable care where risk is foreseeable)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (shipowner duty of reasonable care to passengers)
- Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710 (11th Cir.) (liability depends on whether operator knew or should have known of dangerous condition)
- Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir.) (carrier is liable for negligence but not an insurer)
- Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc., 616 F.2d 825 (5th Cir.) (failure-to-warn liability turns on foreseeability of harm)
- Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir.) (congressional and industry data recognizing prevalence of cruise-ship sexual assaults)