32 F.4th 1311
11th Cir.2022Background
- Fuentes, a passenger on the cruise ship Grand Classica operated by Classica Cruise Operator Ltd., was assaulted during disembarkation after a verbal dispute with another passenger, Hadley; he sustained injuries requiring surgery.
- A Classica security officer intervened during the verbal exchange, separated the men, and radioed for help before Hadley unexpectedly punched Fuentes; customs delayed disembarkation, crowding the lobby.
- Fuentes sued for maritime negligence alleging failures in training, security presence and surveillance, warnings, and enforcement of policies; the district court granted summary judgment for Classica, finding no actual or constructive notice of the risk.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the summary judgment ruling (viewing facts in Fuentes’ favor) and also reviewed for abuse of discretion the denial of Fuentes’ motion for sanctions based on an allegedly unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) designee.
- The court held that maritime law governs, applied the Kermarec reasonable-care standard and Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring actual or constructive notice of a risk-creating condition, and found no evidence that Classica knew or should have known of a risk that would have made the assault foreseeable.
- The court also affirmed denial of sanctions, concluding the corporate designee’s lapses did not amount to sanctionable failure to prepare under Rule 30(b)(6), and that post-deposition evidence could properly be considered at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Classica owed Fuentes a duty to protect against the passenger-on-passenger assault (foreseeability/notice) | Fuentes: verbal disputes commonly escalate; Classica had security present and therefore should have foreseen/ prevented Hadley’s attack | Classica: a verbal dispute alone does not give actual notice; security intervened and the punch was a spontaneous, unforeseeable act | Held: No duty based on notice — no actual or constructive notice that the assault was foreseeable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether prior incidents or other evidence gave Classica constructive notice of assaults during disembarkation | Fuentes: prior disputes and incidents across fleet indicate pattern and risk | Classica: record lacks documented passenger-on-passenger violence during disembarkation; prior incidents differ in kind or did not escalate to violence | Held: No constructive notice — prior incidents insufficiently similar or frequent to create a triable issue |
| Admissibility / weight of plaintiff’s expert on disembarkation procedures | Fuentes: expert showed Classica deviated from its own debarkation protocol, creating danger | Classica: expert opinion did not address notice (the dispositive issue on appeal) | Held: Any error in excluding or discounting the expert was harmless because it did not bear on notice |
| Whether Classica should be sanctioned for an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness and for submitting a post-deposition declaration | Fuentes: designee Plummer failed to answer about prior incidents and security on Deck 5; later evidence contradicted deposition | Classica: designee’s answers were not materially inconsistent with incident report; lapses were not sanctionable and post-deposition evidence was permissible | Held: Denial of sanctions affirmed — no abuse of discretion; redeposition or motion to strike were available remedies Fuentes did not pursue |
Key Cases Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale de Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) (shipowner owes passengers duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances)
- The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649 (1935) (injuries during disembarkation fall within admiralty jurisdiction)
- Minott v. M/Y BRUNELLO, 891 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2018) (injury caused by vessel in navigable waters is a maritime tort)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (maritime reasonable-care standard usually requires actual or constructive knowledge of the risk-creating condition)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (duty to warn passengers of known dangers at port of call when cruise line knew or should have known)
- K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 931 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2019) (foreseeability analysis focuses on incidents of the same type as the plaintiff’s harm)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (crew-member assault invokes strict/vicarious liability rather than Kermarec negligence standard)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (carrier is not insurer of passenger safety; notice required for liability)