Smolnikar v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
787 F. Supp. 2d 1308
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Smolnikar was injured in July 2008 during an offshore zip line excursion in Jamaica on a Royal Caribbean cruise aboard the Liberty of the Seas; the zip line was run by Chukka Caribbean Adventures Ltd.
- Plaintiff alleges Royal Caribbean negligently selected/retained Chukka and failed to warn about dangerous conditions on the tour.
- Plaintiff sought to hold Royal Caribbean directly liable for its own negligence, including negligent selection/retention and failure to warn, and potentially vicarious liability via apparent agency.
- Royal Caribbean provided multiple written disclaimers indicating excursions were operated by independent contractors and that the cruise line would not be liable for injuries arising from excursions.
- The court applies federal maritime law with state-law supplementation where not conflicting, and grants summary judgment for Royal Caribbean on several claims while denying only certain aspects related to disclaimers.
- The court addresses (a) the invalidity of contractual disclaimers under 46 U.S.C. § 30509 for a common carrier's own negligence, (b) negligent selection/retention of Chukka, (c) duty to warn, and (d) apparent agency, ultimately granting summary judgment for Royal Caribbean on negligent selection/retention, failure to warn, and apparent agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the excursion disclaimers void under § 30509 for the carrier's own negligence? | Smolnikar: disclaimers cannot shield Royal Caribbean from its own negligence. | Royal Caribbean: § 30509 does not void all disclaimers in offshore contexts. | Disclaimers are void to the extent they limit Royal Caribbean's liability for its own negligence. |
| Did Royal Caribbean negligently select and/or retain Chukka? | Smolnikar contends failure to diligently inquire into Chukka's fitness. | Royal Caribbean exercised diligent inquiry based on history, reputation, approvals, and lack of contrary notices. | No genuine dispute; Royal Caribbean did not negligently select/retain Chukka. |
| Was Royal Caribbean's failure to warn about traverse 6 negligent? | Smolnikar claims lack of warning for known dangers at traverse 6. | Danger was apparent/obvious; no duty to warn absent knowledge of risk. | Summary judgment for Royal Caribbean on failure to warn. |
| Is there apparent agency between Royal Caribbean and Chukka? | There was evidence of representations that Royal Caribbean was in charge. | Disclaimers and lack of Royal Caribbean manifesting authority negate apparent agency. | No apparent agency; Royal Caribbean granted summary judgment on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir. 1984) (former § 183c invalidates contract waivers of negligence liability)
- Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (cruise line owes passengers duty beyond port; waivers void)
- Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383 (1931) (statutory supplementation of maritime law; general principles apply)
- Becker v. Poling Tramp. Corp., 356 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2004) (common carrier liability for negligent selection of contractor)
- In re Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 176 F.Supp.2d 599 (E.D. La. 2001) (liability for negligent selection/retention of independent contractor)
- Jackson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 203 F.Supp.2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (negligent selection of an independent contractor standard)