Brian G. White, Class of 2016

English

bepress Legal Repository

Terry v. Carnival Corp. 3 F. Supp. 3d 1363 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (Decided January 16, 2014)

St. John's University School of Law

Admiralty Practicum Volume 2014 Issue 1 Fall 2014 Article 8 March 2018 Terry v. Carnival Corp. 3 F. Supp. 3d 1363 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (Decided January 16, 2014) Brian G. White, Class of 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/admiralty_practicum  Part of the Admiralty Commons Recommended Citation Brian G. White, Class of 2016 (2014) "Terry v. Carnival Corp. 3 F. Supp. 3d 1363 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (Decided January 16, 2014)," Admiralty Practicum: Vol. 2014 : Iss. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/admiralty_practicum/vol2014/iss1/8 This Recent Admiralty Cases is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Admiralty Practicum by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact selbyc@stjohns.edu. CRUISE LINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE DENIED WHERE PASSENGER PLAINTIFFS SHOW PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF EMOTIONAL INJURIES, UNDER THE ZONE OF DANGER TEST Terry v .  Carnival Corp. 3 F. Supp. 3d 1 363 United States District Court for the Southern District of F lorida, Miami Division (Decided January 16, 2014) United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division held that plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment would be granted; defendants' motion for summary judgment would be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant, Carnival Corp .  ("Carnival") in connection with their c laims of injury while aboard Carnival ' s  ship, the Triumph. ' The vessel became disabled after a fire broke out in the vesse l ' s  engine room while en route back to Galveston, Texas.2 Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages on claims of breach of contract, negligence and gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.3 Plaintiffs and defendant moved for summary judgment on multiple counts.4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."5 First, the court addressed the claims of plaintiffs Pamela Morris ("Morris"), Larry Poret ("Po ret") and his daughter R .P .  ("R.P .  "), passengers of the Triumph. 6 Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered serious physical and emotional injuries.7 Carnival moved for summary judgment asserting that, despite the plaintiffs' c laims, p laintiffs suffered no physical injury, emotional injury, financial injury, property damage, nor any other provable injury while on the Triumph. 8 P laintiffs claimed to suffer from continuing stress, anxiety, and nightmares since their voyage on the Triumph.9 All three acknowledged and agreed to the terms of the cruise ticket contract. 1 0 As to the breach of contract claim, Carnival asserted that it was entitled to summary judgment because the contract did not contain any provision guaranteeing safe passage, a seaworthy vessel, adequate and wholesome food, and sanitary and safe living conditions. ' '  As a �eneral rule of admiralty law, a ship' s  passengers are not covered by the warranty of seaworthiness. 1 The court granted Carnival ' s  motion for summary 1 Terry v. Carnival Corp. , 3 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1366 (S.D. Fla. 2014). 2 ld. 3 /d. 4 !d. 5 !d. ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 6 !d. at 1367. 7 !d. 8 !d. 9 /d. 10 /d. II /d. 12 /d. at 1367- 1368. Seaworthiness imposes absolute liability on a sea vessel for the carriage of cargo and seamen's  injuries. See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. ,  741 F.2d 1332, 1335 ( I I th Cir. 1984). 16 judgment on the breach of contract claim as against these plaintiffs and an additional eleven plaintiffs. 1 3 Carnival contended that it was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' negl igence and gross negligence claims because plaintiffs offered insufficient evidence to prove that they suffered a cognizable injury or actual harm as a result of the incident onboard the Triumph. 1 4  To establ ish a negligence claim, one must prove that: " ( 1 )  the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury; (2)  the defendant breached that duty; (3 ) the breach actually and proximately caused the plaintiff s  injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm." 1 5 Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires "mental or emotional harm [ . . .  ] that is caused by the negl igence of another and that is not directly brought about by a physical injury, but that may manifest itself  in physical symptoms." 1 6 Under admiralty law, recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is only allowed if  it passes the zone of danger test. 1 7 The zone of danger test "limits recovery for emotional injury to those plaintiffs who sustain a physical impact as a result of a defendant' s  negligent conduct, or who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the conduct." 1 8 Many jurisdictions that fol low this test "also require that a plaintiff demonstrate a ' physical manifestation'  of the alleged emotional injury."  1 9  Here, Morris, Poret, and R.P. complained only of emotional injuries that manifested through sleep deprivation and nightmares.20 While viewing the evidence in the l ight most favorable to the non­moving party, the court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether these plaintiffs were entitled to recover for their emotional distress when applying the physical manifestation test. 2 1 Accordingly, the court denied Carnival ' s  motion for summary judgment on the claims for negligence d 1 °  2 2  an gross neg tgence. Carnival moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim of the additional eleven plaintiffs and asserted that these plaintiffs did not suffer any serious inj uries.23 Carnival argued that the plaintiffs could not recover on their stand-alone emotional distress claims because no evidence existed proving that they suffered a subsequent physical manifestation of their emotional distress. 24 Carnival c laimed that plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence of damages and that such fai lure required entry of judgment in Carnival ' s  favor on the negligence claim.25 The court determined that ten of the eleven plaintiffs' complaints of anxiety, sleeplessness, and nightmares lasting more than a day sufficiently precluded a grant of summary j udgment in favor of Carnival.26 Additionally, the court denied Carnival ' s  motion for summary judgment for the negligent misrepresentation and fraud as to ten of the eleven other plaintiffs .27  The court found one plaintiff did not suffer a cognizable injury when she suffered "emotional trauma" due to her husband, a non-. b h 28 passenger, worrymg a out er. 13 /d. at 1368. 14 !d. 1 5 /d. at 1368 (citing Chaparro v. Carnival Corp. ,  693 F.3d 1333, 1336 ( I I th Cir. 20 12)). 1 6 /d. at 1369 (quoting Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337-38 ( I I th Cir. 20 12)). 1 7  /d. (citing Smith v. Carnival Corp. , 584 F.Supp.2d 1343, 1353-54 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). 18 /d. (quoting Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S .  532, 547-48 (1994)). 19 !d. (quoting Consolidated Rail Corp. , 512 U.S .  at 549 n. I I  ( 1994)). 20 ld at 1370. 21 !d. 22 /d. 23 /d. 24 /d. at 1370-1371. 25 ld at 1371. 26 /d. 27 /d. 28 !d. 17 Carnival moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' c laim for punitive damages.29 Under general maritime law, personal injury claimants have no claim for punitive damages, except in exceptional circumstances, such as wil lful  fai lure to furnish maintenance and cure to a seaman and intentional wrongdoing.30 Plaintiffs fai led to demonstrate intentional misconduct, therefore, the court granted Carnival ' s  motion. 3 1  P laintiffs argued for partial summary judgment as to l iability, or, i n  the alternative, for a presumption of l iabi l ity against Carnival based upon the doctrine of res ispa loquitur. 32 Res ipsa loquitur applies if: "( 1 )  the inj ured party was without fault, (2) the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3 )  the mishap is of a type that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. "33  As to the first prong, the court determined plaintiffs were without fault.34 As to the second prong, the court found that the vessel, flexible fuel l ines, and diesel generator were under the exclusive control and management of Carnival ' s  agents during the subject cruise. 35 Final ly, the court determined that the recorded evidence demonstrated that the fire was a mishap that ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negl igence.36 Accordingly, the court held that Carnival ' s  motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs Moris, Poret and R.P .  was granted in part and denied in part. 37 The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, as wel l  as Carnival ' s  motion as to the plaintiffs' c laim for punitive damages only.3 8  Carnival ' s  Omnibus motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. 39 Brian G. White Class of 20 16 29 /d. 30 /d. (citing In re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canol, A la. on Sept. 22, 1 9 93, 121 F .3d I 1421, 1429 ( 11111 Cir. 1997)). 3 1  ld at 1371-1372. 32 /d at 1372. 33 /d. 34 !d. 35 ld at 1372-1373. 36 !d. 37 /d at 1373-1374. 38 /d at 1374. 39 !d. 18 

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&amp;context=admiralty_practicum

Terry v. Carnival Corp. 3 F. Supp. 3d 1363 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (Decided January 16, 2014)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

St. John's University School of Law