Plaintiff was injured aboard a sailing cruise ship. On the day of the incident, The Captain checked the Bon Voyage System (“BVS”) every hour and noticed that the weather appeared to be significantly worse than what he had seen on the forecasts from the BVS. As standard procedure, the Captain issued several warnings instructing passengers to seek safety on decks four and five. However, plaintiff stayed in her cabin. While attempting to stand up and move across her stateroom, the ship pitched, and plaintiff suffered a hip injury. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence against the cruise line. The cruise line moved for summary judgment.
The court acknowledged that although the cruise line had a duty of care, as a matter of law, Plaintiff could not establish that the cruise line had the requisite notice for a finding of liability. Plaintiff provided no controlling case law that prompted the court to impose upon the cruise line a heightened duty standard. Although actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition is a prerequisite for liability where the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, plaintiff could not establish that the cruise line had the notice of a risk. Also, the record did not show that the Captain was unreasonable in chartering the vessel’s course or that he intentionally endangered the passengers. Furthermore, the Captain warned all of the passengers to seek safety on decks four or five and plaintiff provided no authority to support her position she was entitled to individual warning. Being a frequent cruiser, plaintiff was familiar with adverse weather announcements and yet she elected to remain in her cabin. Given this analysis, the court found that the cruise line was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The case was handled by William F. Clair and Chelsea Mandler.