Samuels v. Holland American Line-USA Inc.
656 F.3d 948
9th Cir.2011Background
- Samuels and his two children, passengers on a Holland American seven-day cruise, visit Lover's Beach at Cabo San Lucas where no lifeguards or warnings are posted.
- Samuels wades in the Sea of Cortez briefly, then enters the Pacific Ocean side of Lover's Beach and suffers a severe neurological injury after a strong pull and tumble.
- Samuels sues Holland American for negligence, alleging the cruise line failed to warn about dangers on the Pacific side of Lover's Beach.
- The district court granted summary judgment, ruling Holland American had no duty to warn; conditions were open and obvious and no evidence of hazardous conditions or prior accidents.
- Samuels moved for reversal, offering declarations from two proposed experts (Hutchinson and Larson) whose testimony the district court later struck as unreliable.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirms, holding no genuine issue of material fact regarding duty to warn due to lack of actual or constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion excluding expert testimony | Samuels argues exclusion of Hutchinson and Larson prejudiced his case | Holland American contends experts were unreliable and lacked qualifications | No reversible error; exclusion upheld |
| Whether there was evidence of hazardous conditions at Lover's Beach | Samuels contends dangerous ocean conditions existed on the Pacific side | Holland American had no knowledge of prior hazards or accidents there | No genuine dispute; no proven hazards or prior accidents |
| Whether the hazardous conditions were open and obvious as a matter of law | Samuels asserts dangers were not open and obvious | Holland American contends the conditions were open and obvious or irrelevant if no notice | Court did not reach open-and-obvious issue; no duty found due to lack of notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of negligence; shipowner's duty under maritime context)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (Supreme Court 1959) (duty of shipowner to exercise reasonable care under circumstances)
- Peters v. Titan Navigation Co., 857 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1988) (ordinary negligence duty under maritime travel context)
- Isbell v. Carnival Corp., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (no constructive notice of danger absent prior accidents)
- Rainey v. Paquet Cruises, Inc., 709 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1983) (danger not peculiar to maritime travel; depends on notice)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeper reliability assessment for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (flexible Daubert standard for non-scientific expert testimony)