The plaintiff was a passenger aboard a cruise ship. At 2:00 a.m., while the vessel was off the coast of Florida, the plaintiff suddenly and inexplicably ran and jumped over the side of the ship to his death. The plaintiff’s estate sued the cruise line claiming the decedent passenger jumped overboard due to his extreme intoxication cause by being over served alcohol. The plaintiff also alleged that the cruise line had inadequate policies and procedures for the safety and security of its passengers, inadequate rescue policies and procedures and inadequate railings, negligent rescue efforts and noncompliance with the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010.
The court granted the defendant cruise line’s summary judgment motion on the issues of inadequate rescue policies and procedures and inadequate railings. The plaintiff produced no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the ship’s railings were inadequate or any evidence that the defendant failed to have in place adequate policies and procedures for the safety and security of its passengers and adequate rescue policies and procedures in place for those who jump overboard.
Summary judgment was also granted on the claim of the cruise lines alcohol-related negligence. The court elected not to apply Florida’s dram shop act finding it did not apply, but found that the duty owed was the duty of reasonable care.
In applying the standard, the court found plaintiffs provided no evidence that a reasonable defendant would have been on notice that the decedent was intoxicated because he did not stumble, slur his speech and did not appear visibly intoxicated to anyone else other than his fiancée. Therefore, not being visibly intoxicated, the cruise line could not have been on notice that decedent (who had been drinking from his own bottle brought on board) was intoxicated. Therefore, there was no breach of duty regarding the over service of alcohol to the decedent.
Similarly, the plaintiff provided no information regarding the cruise lines alcohol-related policy or training of its employees and presented no other evidence that would create an issue of fact regarding the plaintiff’s claims of the defendants’ alcohol-related negligence. Therefore, summary judgment was granted on all alcohol-related allegations.