SARAH RANDOLPH, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMODORE CRUISE LINES LTD., APPELLEE
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.
Summary judgment for the cruise line is reversed because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the passenger received a ticket and was thus bound by its one-year limitations period.
A passenger sued a cruise line for injuries sustained when a chair collapsed. The cruise line sought summary judgment, arguing the suit was time-barre…
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 Material Issue Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Commodore Cruise Lines passenger Sarah Randolph claims she sustained bodily injuries when a dining room chair she had been sitting on collapsed and she fell to the deck. We reverse the summary judgment granted in the appellee cruise line’s favor. Randolph alleged her injury occurred on June 21, 1988. On October 24, 1990, she filed the instant suit. Commodore argued that Randolph’s action was time-barred by the terms of her ticket, which set forth a one-year action limitation. Randolph claimed that she had never received a ticket; thus, her suit should not be time-barred.
The important and disputed issue of fact was whether Randolph ever received a ticket. In her response to Commodore’s request for admissions, Randolph admitted to complying with boarding procedures. However, she also clearly stated in the same set of responses, that she never had a ticket. In her response to request for production, Randolph explained that she had paid cash to a fellow church member and had, in return, received a boarding pass but no ticket.
The trial court, in granting summary judgment, considered Randolph’s admission of compliance with boarding procedures along with the affidavit of a ship worker who stated that boarding required presentation of a ticket and the employee’s statement that this procedure is strictly complied with.
We conclude that, as in Ager v. D/S A/S Den Norske Afrika-Og, 336 F.Supp. 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1972), an issue of fact remained as to whether Randolph had received a ticket and thus could be charged with notice of the suit time limitation. See Raskin v. Compania de Vapores Realma, 521 F.Supp. 337 (S.D.N.Y.1981); see also Car penter v. Klosters Reder, 604 F. 2d 11 (5th Cir.1979). This disputed fact precludes the summary judgment ordered. See Lumbermen’s Mut. Cos. Co. v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Accordingly, the judgment granted in the cruise line’s favor is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…oklet that listed them both as passengers. Collins simply let her companion deal with the paperwork, and opted not to read the ticket. She could have examined it either before, during, or after the cruise. Compare Randolph v. Commodore Cruise Lines, 589 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (issue of fact remained as to whether passenger received actual ticket that contained notice of limitations period, or merely received boarding pass after paying for ticket) and Anderson v. SeaEscape Ltd., 541 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. State, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Carpenter v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 604 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1979)