Sexton v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:2018cv20629 - Document 14 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss as to Counts II, IV, and V. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 7/10/2018. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sexton v. Carnival Corporation Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOU TH ERN DISTR ICT O F FLORID A M iamiDivision CaseNum ber:18-20629-ClV-M ORENO RODGER SEXTON, Plaintiff, CARNIVAL CORPORATION , d/b/a CARN IVA L CRU ISE LIN E , D efendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART M O TION TO DISM ISS AS TO COUNT: llvIV,AND V Plaintiffissuing CarnivalCorporation forinjuriesresulting from a stroke he suffered onboard a cruise ship.Defendantism oving to dismissthree countsin the five- countcom plaint. The Courtgrants the m otion to dism iss the vicariousliability claim , because itisnotproperly pled and contlated with Plaintiff'sdirectnegligence claim . The Courtalso grants the m otion to dism iss Plaintiff s claim thatCarnivalbreached a non-delegable duty, as m aritim e law does not recognize the creation of such a duty. The Court, however,denies the m otion to dism iss the Plaintifpsclaim basedon Carnival'sassumption ofduty. THISCAUSE camebeforetheCourtuponDefendant'sM otiontoDismiss(D.E 7),sled . on M arch 26.2018. THE COURT hasconsidered the m otion, the pertinentportions of the record, and being otherwisefully advised in theprem ises, itis ADJUDGED thatthe m otion isGM NTED in partand DENIED in part. Plaintiffm ay file an am ended com plaintconsistentw ith this orderby July 24, 20 18. Dockets.Justia.com Backiround Plaintifffiled a tive-countcomplaintagainstDefendantCarnivalCorporation. W hile he wasapassengeron the CarnivalVista,Plaintiffsuffered a stroke. Heclaimstheship'sphysician misdiagnosed his condition asa bacterialinfection. Plaintiffallegeshe suffered lossofmemory and vision,and is permanently impaired. The tive counts are negligence, vicarious liability, apparentagency,assum ption ofduty,and a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable m edical care. Defendantismovingto dismissCounts11forvicariousliability, IV forassumption ofduty, and V forthenon-delegableduty toprovidereasonable medicalcare. l1. LeaalStandard ''To survive a m otion to dismiss, plaintiffs must do more than m erely state legal conclusionsr''instead plaintiffsmustStallege som e specific factualbasisforthose conclusionsor facedismissaloftheirclaim s.''Jackson v.Bellsouth Telecomm., 272F.3d 1250,1263(11th Cir. 2004). W hen ruling on amotion to dismiss,acoul'tmustview the complaintin the lightmost favorable to the plaintiff and acceptthe plaintiffs well-pleaded factsas true. See St.Joseph' s Hosp.,Inc.v.Hosp.Corp . ofAm.,795F. 2d 948,953(11th Cir.1986).Thistenet,however,does notapplytolegalconclusions. SeeAshcrojtv.Iqbal,129 S.Ct.1937,1949 (2009) M oreover, . çigwjhilelegalconclusionscanprovidetheframework ofacomplaint, they m ustbe supported by factualallegations.'' ld at1950. Those' 'gtqactualallegationsmustbeenough toraisearightto reliefabove the speculative levelon the assum ption thatallofthe complaint's allegations are true.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombl y 550 U .S.544,545 (2007). In short,the complaintmustnot m erely allege a m isconduct,butm ustdem onstrate thatthe pleaderisentitled to relief. See Iqbal, l29 S.Ct.at 1950. 111.LeaalAnalvsis M aritim e law controls actions stemm ing from alleged torts on cnlise ships. Keefe v. Baham as Cruise Line,867 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.1989). Generally,a dç shipownerisonly liableto itspassengersformedicalnegligence ifits conductbreachesthe canier'smore general duty to exercist treasonable case underthecircum stances.'''Franza v.RoyalCaribbean Cruises, Ltd., 772 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kermarec Companie Generale Transatlantique,358U.S.625,632 (1959)). Count2. .VicariousLiability Count2 ofPlaintiffscom plaintisforvicariousliability. A sopposed to a claim ofdirect negligence,Plaintiff, here,is attem pting to recover in the event C arnival's m edical staff w as negligentin treating Plaintiff. The allegationsin thiscountarethatDefendantbreached itsduty to exercise reasonable care by failing to ensure Plaintiff obtained medicaltreatm ent within a reasonable amountof time.Plaintiff also alleges thatDefendantfailed to timely and properly diagnosePlaintiff sm edicalcondition, failed to attend to Plaintiffafterhisstroke, failed to escort Plaintiffto obtain reasonable m edicalcare,failed to provide reasonable m edicalcare, failed to reasonably diagnose Plaintiff,and failed to properly examinethe Plaintiffsinjuries. Thereis one statementthatDefendantS'through its employees and agents, . . . the ship's medicalstaff, knew or should have known thatthe m edicalproceduresthey employed violated and/or did not m eetreasonable standardsofcare.'' The allegations in this countcontlate tw o differenttheories of liability:directnegligence and vicarious liability. C om m ingling direct and vicarious liability is an im proper pleading practice.Wohfordv.CarnivalCorp.,No.17-20703-C1V,2017W L 7731225,*3(S.D.Fla.M ay 11,2017)(digpjleading a directnegligence claim togetherwith a vicariousliability claim...is improper,confusing, and violates Rule 10(b).'').There is no question, when reading the negligence and vicarious liability counts, side-by-side, that the vicarious liability count is exceedingly similarand includes elementsofthe directnegligence claim in Count 1. Therefore, tht Courtgrants the motion to dism iss Count2 for vicarious liability, withoutprejudice and grants Plaintiff leave to am end this countto allege why Carnival is vicariously liable for the negligenceofitsm edicalstaff. Count4:AssumptionJ/DZ//. P In Count 4,Plaintiff claim s Carnival assumed a duty to provide m edical care, and therefore,had the obligation to use reasonable care in the provision ofm edicalservices. Federal courtshaverecognized thatthetkassumption ofduty''dodrine, assetfort h in j323oftheSecond Restatem entofTorts,Skisapplicable in m aritim e cases.''D unaway v,United States,CIV A-98- 2035,2000W L 64291,at*3(E.D.La.Jan.26,2000)(citinglndian Towing Co.v.UnitedStates, 350U.S.61,69(1955)). Section 323oftheSecond RestatementofTorts,which pertainstothe negligentperformanceofundertaking to renderservices, providesthat: Onewho undertakesgratuitously orforconsideration, to render servicesto anotherwhich heshould recognize asnecessary for the protedion of the other person or things, is subject to liability to theotherforphysicalharm resulting from hisfailure to exercisereasonablecareto perform hisundertaking, if (a)hisfailuretoexercisesuchcareincreasestheriskofsuch harm ,or (b)theharm issufferedbecauseoftheother'srelianceuponthe undertaking. D isler v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, L/J , N o. 17-23874-C lV -M oreno, 2018 W L 1916614, *4 (S.D.Fla.April23,2018)(quoting Restatement(Second)ofTorts j 323);Rojasv.Carnival Corp.,N o.13-21897-C1V -Lenard,2015 W L 7736475, *6(S. D.Fla.Nov.30,2015). Plaintiffpled thatDefendantvoluntarily assum ed a duty to use reasonable care when it elected to provide Plaintiffwith medicalservices. Plaintiff alleges thatDefendantbreached its duties because the physicians and othercrew mem bersresponsible fortreating Plaintifflacked adequateexperienceintreatingPlaintiffsinjuriesandfailedtoproperly diagnosePlaintiff They . also failed to provide m edicaltreatm entin a reasonable amountoftim e. As a result,Plaintiff allegeshesuffered additionalinjuries. Carnivalcontendsthere isno assumption ofduty claim when a cnlise line undertakesto provide medicalselwicesbecausea cruise ship isnotrequired to providemedicalservices. M any pçz-Franza casesheld thataship hasno duty to secure m edicaltreatm entforitspassengers. See e.g.,Zapata v.RoyalCaribbean Cruises, Ltd ,No. 12-21897-C1V,2013 W L 1296298, at *3 (S.D.Fla.Mar.27,2013)(stating thata ship isnotatloatinghospitaland acnliselinehasnot duty toprovidedoctorsormedicalcare). TheEleventh Circuit'sdecision in Franza, however, calls into question the rationale of earlier decisions stem ming from the rule announced in Barbetta v.S/S Bermuda Star,848 F.2d 1364, 1367 (5th Cir.1988),which provided 'ç broad im m unity for cruise lines,'' ln Franza, the Eleventh Circuitspecifcally çddeclined to adoptthe Barbetta rule because of,am ong other reasons, çthe evolution of legal nonns, the rise of a com plex cruise industry, and the progression of m odern technology.'' 'Gharfeh v.Carnival Corp.,N o. 17-20499-C1V ,2018 W L 1697025, at*9 (S.D.Fla.Apr.6,2018)(quotingFranza, 772F.3dat1228)). Although Franza bears on the distinct issue of whether a cruise line can be held vicariously liable forthe m alpractice of its m edicalpersonnel, tûitalso contains a com prehensive overview ofm aritim e negligence law and its developm ent, and itanalyzes m yriad public policy concerns that militate in favor of adopting a m ore contem porary approach to cnzise ship litigation.''Gharfeh,2018 W L 1697025,at#9.Itnotedthatttapassengerwho fallsi11aboarda cruise ship has precious little choice but to submit to onboard care''and Ssm ay have literally now here else to go.''Franza,772 F.3d at1242. Franza,Gharfeh,and this Court's holding in Disler denying a motion to dismiss an assum ption of duty claim , dictate that this Court allow this claim to survive the m otion to dismiss.TheCourtmayrevisitthisissueatsummaryjudgmentto determinetheviabilityofthis claim,but,atthisjuncture,Plaintiffhasproperlypledit. Count5:BreachoftheNon-DelegableDt/fy toProvideMedicalCare Count 5 is a claim thatCarnivalbreaehed a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable m edical care. Plaintiff relies on Franza to support this claim , quoting language that says ksgcjarriersowetheirailingpassengers$adutytoexercisereasonablecareto fumish such aid and assistance as ordinarily prudent persons would render under sim ilar circum stances.''' This assertion,however,istaking Franzatsdictatoo far. Franza allowsshipownersto be vicariously liable when a passenger receivesnegligentm edicalcare by its agents aboard its ship. Franza, 772 F.3d at 1235. This Courthas also allowed Plaintiff to proceed on its assum ption of duty claim,stating thatwhen a ship undertakesto providem edicalcare to itspassengers, itm ustdo so with reasonable care. W hile thisCourtrecognizesthatFranza changes the priorlegallandscape, there isno language to supportthe creation of a non-delegable duty. Plaintiffhasnotcited any statutol'y authority or case law to supportthis assertion. Accordingly,the Court grants the m otion to dism iss. A D ON E A N D ORD ERED in Cham bers atM iam i,Florida,this ofJuly 2018. FED ER . OREN O UNIT STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Copiesfurnished to: CounselofRecord 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
