Witoyer v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
161 F. Supp. 3d 1139
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Plaintiff Joyce Wit‑over, a scooter‑dependent cruise passenger, bought a Celebrity shore excursion advertised and represented as "handicapped‑accessible" and was injured in Lisbon when a tour operator allegedly mishandled her scooter during bus disembarkation.
- Plaintiff informed Celebrity of her mobility needs before boarding and discussed accessible shore excursions with Celebrity representatives; she alleges oral assurances that the excursion would accommodate her disabilities.
- Plaintiff sued Celebrity under maritime law alleging: (1) breach of a non‑delegable duty (shore excursion contract), (2) direct negligence (failure to warn/ensure safety), (3) negligent selection/retention of the tour operator, (4) direct liability for the tour operator’s negligence, and (5) vicarious liability based on actual or apparent agency.
- Celebrity moved to dismiss all counts arguing (inter alia) maritime limits on contract claims, lack of knowledge/foreseeability for negligence, insufficiency of facts for negligent hiring, inability to assert direct liability for a third party, and that agency is negated by shore excursion disclaimers.
- The court applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards and general maritime law. It denied dismissal of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 (allowing discovery on oral modification, foreseeability/knowledge, negligent retention, and agency facts) and dismissed Count 4 with prejudice (no cognizable cause of action for "direct" liability for another’s acts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of non‑delegable duty for shore excursion contract | Wit‑over alleges Celebrity promised an accessible excursion (oral modification) separate from carriage contract | Celebrity says maritime rule bars contract claims absent express safe‑passage term like in carriage contracts | Denied dismissal: oral assurances plausibly modify the excursion contract; breach claim survives to discovery |
| Direct negligence (duty to warn/ensure safety on shore) | Celebrity knew plaintiff’s disability and should have warned/ensured safety for accessible excursion | Celebrity says it had no knowledge of the dangerous unloading practice and is not required to supervise third‑party excursions | Denied dismissal: negligence claim survives; foreseeability/knowledge is factual and discovery‑dependent, and carrier’s knowledge of disability may expand duty |
| Negligent hiring/retention of tour operator | Plaintiff alleges longstanding relationship and unsafe loading/unloading practices Celebrity knew or should have known | Celebrity contends insufficient facts showing operator unfitness when retained | Denied dismissal: allegations that procedures were unsafe and Celebrity’s long relationship plausibly plead negligent retention |
| Direct liability for tour operator’s negligence (Count 4) | Plaintiff contends Celebrity cannot avoid liability by delegating duties to third parties | Celebrity: cannot be directly liable for another’s acts; disclaimers emphasize independent contractor status | Granted dismissal: no legal basis to hold Celebrity directly liable for another’s negligence; claim dismissed with prejudice; vicarious liability addressed under agency theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (shore excursion injuries governed by maritime law)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (foreseeability and duty issues often for later stages)
- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 867 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1989) (duty to warn of land dangers not clearly nautical)
- Doonan v. Carnival Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (limitations on contract‑based claims for carriage contracts)
- Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 529 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1976) (unseaworthiness doctrine does not extend to shore injuries caused by shore instrumentalities)