Are Cruise Ships Liable if Something Goes Wrong During an Excursion?
Passengers of cruise ships injured or killed during shore excursions: Is the cruise ship company liable if something goes wrong during the excursion they promote and sell to the passenger?
January 30, 2018 at 11:40 AM
4 minute read
Passengers of cruise ships injured or killed during shore excursions: Is the cruise ship company liable if something goes wrong during the excursion they promote and sell to the passenger?
One of the major attractions that cruise ship companies offer to their passengers are excursions. They market them, suggest you purchase your tickets directly from them for safety reasons, and sell the excursions both before the cruise begins and on board the ship. Passengers can find these exciting and exotic excursions on the websites of the major cruise ship companies, where it is recommended that they purchase directly from them. A clear message is sent that a passenger is at less risk by purchasing directly from the cruise ship company as the excursion companies have been previously vetted, including its safety.
Recently, passengers from a Royal Caribbean and Celebrity cruise ship were injured and killed in a bus accident when the passengers were being transported to a tour of the Mayan ruins in Mexico. This tragedy caused the death of 12 passengers and injuries to many others. Eight Americans were killed in the crash, including an 11-year-old boy.
The legal question is: what is the liability of the cruise ship company that promoted and sold the excursion for this accident, or any other type accident during an excursion sold by the cruise ship company? There are difficult legal barriers to recovery that a passenger will face. The most difficult barrier is the cruise ship company, despite promoting and selling the tour and the appearance that the excursion companies are agents of the cruise ship company, will attempt to avoid any legal liability to the passengers by asserting that the excursion companies involved are independent contractors for which they have no legal liability for their actions. In fact, the passenger ticket issued to passengers, which is essentially a contract of several pages in fine print of legal terms and conditions, asserts that these companies are in fact independent contractors under the law.
Despite the characterization by the cruise ship companies that the excursion companies are independent contractors, the facts and circumstances can be used to prove otherwise and hold the cruise ship company accountable under maritime law. There are several theories of liability to hold the cruise ship company liable for an accident involving an excursion, including arguing that the excursion company is acting as an agent for the cruise ship company contrary to assertions by the cruise ship company, as well as an argument that even if under the law the excursion companies are not considered an agent, they will be held as such under a theory of apparent agency because the cruise ship company has created the appearance of an agency relationship in an effort to sell these tickets and profit from them.
Another theory is if the facts and circumstances reveal a dangerous condition that contributed to the accident that was known or reasonably should have been known to the cruise ship company, the cruise ship company may have had a duty to warn the passengers and/or not hired or retained the particular excursion company. For example, a poor safety record of the transportation company would be evidence of negligence on the part of the cruise ship company for failure to properly investigate the company prior to promoting and selling the passengers the excursion.
This is a difficult area under the maritime law dealing with cruise ship liability for passenger injuries and deaths. Cruise ship passengers also face the contractual shortened statute of limitations date for filing a lawsuit against the cruise ship company, which is one year from the date of the incident. There are also notice requirements in the passenger ticket that must be complied with.
The bottom line is a cruise ship company can be liable for injuries or death during an excursion off the ship depending on the facts and circumstances, and the particular maritime legal theories pursued by the attorney.
Brett Rivkind, a partner with Rivkind & Margulies in Miami, has been handling maritime claims, including those occurring during shore excursions, for more than 33 years.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 2A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 3Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 45th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 5Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250