Cruise Ship Liable for Minor’s Claims

In re Complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643 (D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2006).

Terra Bowling, J.D.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that a release signed by a parent on behalf of his son did not exonerate a cruise company from liability stemming from a wave runner accident.

Background
During a cruise aboard the Sovereign of the Seas, Keith Howard and his son, Mark, participated in a day trip to Coco Cay, Bahamas. In Coco Cay, the Howards signed up for a guided wave runner tour led by Royal Caribbean Cruise (RCC) employees. Before taking the trip, Keith signed a waiver and release agreement for himself and Mark. The agreement contained language releasing RCC from liability for any injuries resulting from the use of the wave runner. The agreement also contained a provision that prohibited participants from operating the watercraft within 100 yards of any shoreline.

While touring Coco Cay on the wave runner, the Howards crashed into an island. The Howards and RCC each claimed different causes of the accident. The Howards held the tour leader responsible for the crash, alleging that he led the group too close to the island, while RCC pointed to the Howards’ failure to adhere to the tour’s course and safety rules. It was unclear whether Keith Howard’s failure to wear glasses during the tour contributed to the accident.

After the accident, Royal Caribbean brought a claim for exoneration, citing the release agreements signed by Keith Howard. The Howards filed claims against the cruise line, which then moved for summary judgment.

Waiver and Release
The court found that the release signed by Keith Howard was clear and unambiguous—and therefore enforceable. Keith Howard argued that his release became invalid when the tour leader took the group within 100 yards of the shore, violating one of the provisions of the release. The court rejected that claim, finding that the release clearly stated the safety rule and that when Howard signed the release, he agreed to abide by its provisions, regardless of the tour guide’s actions.

The court held that the release signed on behalf of Mark was unenforceable. RCC cited cases upholding parental releases; however, the court distinguished that those releases involved nonprofit community-based activities, not private for-profit activities.

Liability Claims
Since the court found the waiver and release unenforceable against Mark, it examined his liability claims against RCC. The court rejected the claims Mark brought under the doctrine of unseaworthiness. The court agreed with RCC that the doctrine was limited to seamen and did not extend to a ship’s passengers; therefore, Mark’s claims of unseaworthiness had to be dismissed. The court did note that when examining the merits of Mark’s claims in a separate exoneration proceeding, the court will examine whether acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness caused the accident.

The Howards also claimed that a strict liability standard should govern the case, alleging that riding wave runners is an ultra-hazardous activity. The court, however, had already ruled that a negligence standard would govern the case. Mark also brought negligence claims under Florida statutory law, but the court found that Mark could not support those claims, since the suit was governed by substantive general maritime law.

Conclusion
The district court granted summary judgment to RCC with regard to Keith Howard’s claims, but denied summary judgment with regard to Mark Howard’s claims. The court will examine the merit of Mark’s negligence claims in a separate action.