Lipkin v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
93 F. Supp. 3d 1311
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Lipkin, 83, disembarked from Norwegian Sun in Port of Miami after a 2012 cruise and walked on a moving walkway using a cane.
- A wheelchair on the walkway jammed at the end, creating a barrier; Lipkin was struck and fell, suffering a broken hip.
- Lipkin filed an Amended Complaint adding Miami-Dade County; claims include four negligence and four breach of contract theories against Norwegian Defendants, and a negligence claim against the County.
- Warning decals at the walkway base were placed by the manufacturer; County owned and maintained the walkway under an agreement with the manufacturer.
- Norwegian moved to dismiss arguing Florida law negligence claims in a maritime action; County moved to dismiss for lack of admiralty jurisdiction; proceedings included motions for summary judgment by Norwegian and the County.
- Court determines admiralty jurisdiction over the claims, dismisses some causes of action, and reserves others in light of duty to warn, notice, and proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims against Norwegian fall within admiralty jurisdiction | Lipkin asserts admiralty jurisdiction due to in-port unloading context. | Norwegian contends claims are not maritime in nature. | Claims fall within admiralty jurisdiction; in-port unloading torts are maritime. |
| Whether Norwegian’s alleged negligence can be based on maritime law | Plaintiff pleads maritime-negligence theories for warning and enduring risk. | If within admiralty, claims must be maritime, not Florida premises-law. | Plaintiff’s maritime negligence claim survives; Florida-law premises theories dismissed. |
| Whether the Guest Ticket Contract permits a maritime breach of contract claim | Plaintiff claims Norwegian breached by not returning him safely. | No provision in contract guaranteeing safe passage; not cognizable under maritime law. | Breach of contract claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether other Norwegian entities are proper defendants | All Norwegian-related entities may bear liability; discovery requested. | Only NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is proper; others are inactive/dissolved. | Claims against Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., and NCL America, Inc. are granted dismissal; limited to NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. |
| What is Miami-Dade County's liability and duty regarding warning and premises | County owed undertakings to keep walkways clear and to warn of hazards. | County’s duties are limited to maintenance and known-danger warnings; not to monitor wheelchair use. | County granted summary judgment on Count IX; no proven breach or proximate cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959) (shipowner's duty to exercise reasonable care toward those aboard the vessel)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (duty to warn of known dangers beyond debarkation points)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (notice requirement for risk-creating conditions; liability if created by defendant)
- Doonan v. Carnival Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (premises-based cruise-line liability; contract terms)
- John Morrell & Co. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (proximate causation and warning adequacy in maritime context)
- Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1995) (location and nexus tests for admiralty jurisdiction)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (torts in port by cruise lines may satisfy locality test)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Gorp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (foreseeability and proximate cause in tort liability context)