KLOSTERS REDERI A/S D/B/A NORWEGIAN CARIBBEAN LINES, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNE M. COWDEN AND CHARLES G. COWDEN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A cruise ship passenger was injured by an employee's intentional tort while aboard the Norway. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages under Florida law, but the appellate court reversed, holding that maritime law—not state law—must apply to claims arising from torts committed within maritime jurisdiction, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages and the husband's loss of consortium claim.
Maritime law, not Florida law, must apply to torts committed within maritime jurisdiction even when the action is filed in state court. The trial court erred in applying Florida law to punitive damages and in failing to apply maritime law to the husband's loss of consortium claim. The case is remanded for a new trial on both issues under the proper maritime law standard.
[1] Torts committed within maritime jurisdiction are governed by maritime law, which must be applied even when the action is filed in a state court.
[2] A trial court must apply maritime law once the applicability of maritime law is presented, even if the issue was not raised in a timely fashion by the parties.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Torts committed within maritime jurisdiction fall within the purview of maritime law which must be applied even though the action is filed in a state court.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that maritime law governs torts committed in maritime jurisdiction regardless of forum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeanne Cowden was a passenger on the cruise ship Norway when she was the victim of an intentional tort committed by one of the ship owner's employees.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intentional Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Jeanne Cowden, while a passenger on the Norway, was the victim of an intentional tort committed by one of appellant’s employees. She sued the owner, Klosters Re-deri A/S d/b/a Norwegian Caribbean Lines. A jury awarded compensatory damages of $75,000 and punitive damages of $50,000. In this appeal, Norwegian Caribbean Lines contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of punitive damages under Florida law rather than in accordance with maritime law. Norwegian Caribbean Lines does not challenge the finding of liability or the award of compensatory damages.
In a cross-appeal, Mrs. Cowden’s husband contends that the unrebutted testimony entitled him to recover for loss of consortium and that the trial court should have granted him a new trial when the jury failed to return a verdict in his favor. We agree on both points and remand for a new trial applying maritime law to questions pertaining to punitive damages and to the husband’s claim for loss of consortium.
Torts committed within maritime jurisdiction fall within the purview of maritime law which must be applied even though the action is filed in a state court. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). Florida law differs from maritime law on the burden of proof necessary to establish punitive damages. Compare Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981) with United States Steel Corp. v. Fuhrman, 407 F. 2d 1143 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 2162, 2163, 26 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).
Unfortunately, the parties failed to advise the court that maritime law applied until the trial was well under way. It was not until just before closing argument when appellant moved for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages that the trial court learned that maritime law applied. Thus, in the Order on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict the trial court specified that Norwegian’s failure to plead or direct any motions to the issue in a timely fashion precluded the application of maritime law. Despite appellant’s failure to plead the appropriate law initially, we believe that once the request to apply maritime law was presented, it was incumbent upon the trial court to proceed under maritime law. See Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 42 S.Ct. 475, 66 L.Ed. 927 (1922).
With regard to the cross-appeal, we agree with Mr. Cowden that he is entitled to a new trial, under maritime law, on his claim for loss of consortium.
Reversed in part and remanded for a new trial as to punitive damages and claim for loss of consortium.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
I think it should be made clear that the evidence did not entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages under maritime law, which the court properly holds is applicable to this case. E.g., United States Steel Corp. v. Fuhrman, 407 F. 2d 1143 (6th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 2162, 26 L.Ed.2d 542 (1970) (punitive damages available only when employer participates in, authorizes, or ratifies seaman’s wrongful act). In Re: Marine Sulphur Queen, 460 F. 2d 89 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 982, 93 S.Ct. 326, 34 L.Ed.2d 246 (1972) (same). Ordinarily, therefore, we would simply strike the punitive damages award from the judgment below. I agree with the majority that remand is instead in order in this instance only because the defendant did not dispute the fact that Florida law controlled until both sides had rested at the trial. Since the plaintiff may well have been misled by this mutual misunderstanding into a failure to develop by investigation and discovery anything more than was required to meet the standard of Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981) — which was in fact satisfied — she should now be given that opportunity. If she is able, however, to establish nothing beyond what appears in the present record, a summary judgment or directed verdict for the defendant on the punitive damages issue will be required.
FERGUSON, J., concurs in the opinions of both SCHWARTZ, C.J. and BASKIN, J.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…re in addition a contemporaneous objection at trial. Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1953); Nix v. Summitt, 52 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1951); Shank, as discussed in Jackson, supra; Fairbanks, supra;4 see, Loftin, supra; Klosters Rederi A/S v. Cowden, 447 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 182 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Thieneman v. Cameron, 126 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Stroud v. Govreau, 495 S.W. 2d 682 (Mo.1973);…
-
Darce Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…rts committed within maritime jurisdiction fall within the purview of maritime law. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generole Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); Klosters Rederi A/S d/b/a Norwegian Caribbean Lines, v. Cowden, 447 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Rand v. Hatch, 762 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (general maritime law applies to a claim for a ship’s doctor’s malpractice). Additionally, a cruise ship ticket is a maritime contract, governed by maritime law. See The…
-
Nadia Bach and Ronald Carter v. Murray, 658 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…. 2d DCA 1973); Hancock v. Smith, 248 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). This result is equally applicable to Carter’s claim for loss of consortium. Loftin v. Anderson, 66 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1953); McCloud, 579 So. 2d at 774; Klosters Rederi A/S v. Cowden, 447 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Shaw v. Peterson, 376 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Webber v. Jordan, 366 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1979); Kinne v. Burgin, 311 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Based upon the undisputed evidence…
Authorities Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959)
- Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1922)
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Fuhrman v. United States Steel Corp., 398 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1970)
- Mahin v. Mitchell, 409 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1972)
- Diehl v. United States, 409 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1972)
- In re the Vessel Marine Sulphur Queen. Marine Sulphur Transp. Corp., 460 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1972)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fuhrman, 407 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir. 1969)