LAWRENCE W. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, 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.
A cruise ship passenger injured after falling down stairs while intoxicated sued Royal Caribbean for breach of its duty to exercise reasonable care. The court reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that maritime law imposes a duty on cruise operators to avoid overserving alcohol to passengers and to protect passengers from known disabilities caused by intoxication.
Under general maritime law, a cruise ship operator owes a paying passenger a duty to exercise reasonable care for the passenger's safety, including the duty to avoid overserving alcohol and to protect passengers from their self-imposed disabilities caused by intoxication.
[1] General maritime law imposes a duty on a vessel owner to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passengers.
[2] A cruise ship owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in serving alcohol to passengers, including not overserving them to the point of intoxication.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the complaint clearly stated a cause of action for breach of the defendant's duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passengers, as is established by the general maritime law applicable here”
Establishes that maritime law imposes a duty of reasonable care on cruise operators toward passengers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence Hall, a paying passenger on Royal Caribbean's cruise ship, was served alcohol by vessel employees to the point of obvious intoxication. After…
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 Dram Shop Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing an amended complaint which alleged that the plaintiff, a paying passenger on the defendant’s cruise ship, was injured on the high seas when, after having been served alcohol by the vessel’s employees to and obviously past the point of intoxication, he staggered from a lounge, and while unable to look after himself fell down two flights of open stairways.
The order under review is erroneous and must be reversed because the complaint clearly stated a cause of action for breach of the defendant’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passengers, as is established by the general maritime law1 applicable here, see Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlan- tique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 71 U.S. 411, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), in both (a) overserving the plaintiff, Kludt v. Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 2d 973 (N.D.Ind.2001); Bay Casino, LLC. v. M/V Royal Empress, 199 F.R.D. 464 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Quinn v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 815 So. 2d 963 (La.App.2002), writ denied, 813 So. 2d 412 (2002); Guinn v. Commodore Cruise Line Ltd., 1997 WL 164290 (S.D.N.Y.1997), and (b) failing to protect him from his (albeit self-imposed) disability. The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 25 L.Ed. 1061 (1879); Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 123 F. 3d 1287 (9th Cir.1997), cert. dismissed, 522 U.S. 1100, 118 S.Ct. 906, 139 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998); Holmes v. Oregon & California Ry. Co., 5 F. 523 (D.Or.1881).2 This holding necessarily results also in a reversal of the separate (but substantively redundant) count which alleges a breach of the applicable contract of carriage between the passenger and the carrier. Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Reversed.
. We disagree with the minority position that the issue may be governed by the dram shop act of the forum state. Cf. Meyer v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 1994 WL 832006 (N.D.Cal.1994); Voillat v. Red & White Fleet, 2004 WL 547146 (N.D.Cal.2004). As is said in Robert D. Peltz, The Myth of Uniformity in Maritime Law, 21 Tul. Mar. L.J. 103 (1996);
The first lesson that every law student studying Admiralty I learns is that, although most maritime suits may be filed in state court, they are nevertheless governed by substantive maritime law to maintain the uniformity which is necessary for a national maritime law.
. Under maritime law, of course, comparative negligence is a viable defense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. COX, 137 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Zareno, 712 So. 2d 791, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Doles v. Koden Int’l, Inc., 779 So. 2d 609, 611-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also Carnival Corp. v. Carlisle, 953 So. 2d 461, 464 (Fla.2007); Hall v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 888 So. 2d 654, 654 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Hopkins v. The Boat Club, Inc., 866 So. 2d 108, 110-11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Federal maritime law follows the American Rule regarding attorney’s fees. See Misener Marine Constr., Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 594 F. 3d…
-
Masse v. MSC Cruises, S.A. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…that it did not. Constructive Notice. To survive summary judgment based on a theory of constructive knowledge, Masse must present facts demonstrating that his state of dangerous intoxication was obvious. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 888 So. 2d 654, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that a complaint stated a cause of action against a cruise ship where the passenger alleged that he 18 ---PAGE 18--- was obviously past the point of intoxication and unable to look after himself).⁶ What's more, not…
Authorities Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959)
- The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 (U.S. 1866)
- The "City of Panama", 101 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1879)
- Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., S.A., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- United States v. Quimby, 4 Wall. 408 (U.S. 1866)
- Darce Carlisle v. Carnival Corp., 864 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- In re Tucker, 522 U.S. 1100 (U.S. 1998)
- Soc'y Expeditions, Inc. v. Chan et ux., 522 U.S. 1100 (U.S. 1998)