JOSE NATOEL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE, LTD., AND NORDIC PRINCE, INC., 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for defendants on punitive damages and attorney's fees in a seaman's maintenance and cure claim, holding that the seaman failed to present evidence of willful or arbitrary failure to provide maintenance and cure.
A directed verdict for defendants on punitive damages and attorney's fees in a maintenance and cure claim is proper where the seaman presents no evidence of willful or arbitrary failure to provide maintenance and cure.
[1] Punitive damages and attorney's fees in a seaman's maintenance and cure claim require evidence of willful or arbitrary failure to provide maintenance and cure to survive…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA seaman brought a claim against Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ltd. and Nordic Prince, Inc. for maintenance and cure, seeking punitive damages and attorney'…
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 Seaman'S Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages and attorney’s fees in connection with the seaman’s claim for maintenance and cure. After reviewing the record below in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 478 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1985), we find that the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law where the seaman did not present evidence that the defendants had wilfully or arbitrarily failed to provide him with maintenance and cure. International Ships Servs., Ltd. v. Canales, 639 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Dos Santos v. Ajax Navigation Corp., 531 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), cert. dismissed, 489 U.S. 1048, 109 S.Ct. 1304, 103 L.Ed.2d 574 (1989).
Additionally, we affirm the trial court’s entry of the order granting the defendants’ motion for a new trial. We find that it was well within the trial court’s sound discretion to grant a new trial, Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla.1988), where the evidence that was presented by the seaman, prior to the entry of a directed verdict, pertaining to his punitive damages claim substantially prejudiced the jury and tainted its verdict. Ford v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1379, 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…”); Lockett v. State, 657 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (Sharp, W., J., concurring specially) (to forestall defendant from filing a fifth or sixth rule 3.850 motion, court should designate defendant's motion an abuse of process); Leone v. State, 657 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (petition is abuse of process; arguments have little or no merit; arguments could and should have been raised either on direct appeal or in first rule 3.850 motion); Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 204, 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (is…
-
Johnson v. State, 680 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…; Davis v. State, 589 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1991). Johnson seems not to have heard our message that a defendant is entitled to but one “bite at the apple” or that “enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See Leone v. State, 657 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Even Herman Melville had to come to an ending in Moby Dick. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that filing t…
-
Hack v. The Est. OF Dorothy T. Helling, 811 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…(Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Thalgott v. Thal-gott, 571 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In any event, the same law is applicable to both motions. Foster v. City of Gainesville, 579 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). . Natoel v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ltd., 657 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Texaco, Inc. v. Giltak Corp., 492 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981); Allen v. Dutton’s Estate, 394 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLA. BAR (RULE 1-4.3, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Ford v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ligman v. Jeffrey Tardiff, M.D., 466 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Mateus Da Cunha dos Santos v. Ajax Navigation Corp., 531 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Int'l Ships Servs. v. Medardo Flores Canales, 639 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Fetterly v. Idaho, 489 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1989)
- Williams v. Kemp, 489 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1989)