11th Circuit Chief Judge Concurs With Himself in Ruling on Royal Caribbean Rape Case
Chief Judge Ed Carnes felt so strongly about a lawsuit alleging Royal Caribbean could have stopped a teenager from being gang raped by passengers that he concurred specially with the opinion he'd authored, citing data.
July 29, 2019 at 01:23 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concurred specially with his own opinion for the panel, reinstating a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. that alleged the cruise line was negligent over the gang rape of a young passenger.
“Usually, there is nothing else for the author of a majority opinion to say, but here there is,” Carnes wrote.
The victim, a minor referred to in the complaint as K.T., claimed she was brutally raped by a group of male passengers who led her to a cabin after plying her with alcohol at the ship's public lounge.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore in the Southern District of Florida had dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, ruling that the allegations did not show that Royal Caribbean breached its duty of care.
But Carnes disagreed, backed by Eleventh Circuit Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Frank M. Hull, who found the ship's staff could have stopped the rape.
Miami attorneys Michael A. Winkleman and Carol L. Finklehoffe of maritime firm Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman handled the appeal. They claimed the alleged attackers had given alcohol to K.T. in view of crew members, some of whom were responsible for watching security cameras, but who allegedly did nothing.
Assuming the allegations were true, the Eleventh Circuit found the cruise line breached its ordinary duty of care to the plaintiff. And because she was a minor, the court found that staff were not only responsible for stopping her from buying alcohol, but also for stopping other passengers from buying it for her.
“It is self-evident from the allegations of the complaint that but for Royal Caribbean's breach of its duties of care to K.T. she would not have been brutalized and gang raped,” Carnes wrote. “If the allegations are true, Royal Caribbean proximately caused the alleged injuries.”
Counsel to Royal Caribbean, Darren Wayne Friedman and Karen Foy Grossman of Foreman Friedman in Miami, deferred comment to their client. However, Owen Torres, a spokesman for Royal Caribbean, declined to comment on the case, but said the safety and security of guests is a top priority.
The defendant has denied any wrongdoing and had argued that if the court blamed it for the attack, that would essentially make cruise lines insurers of their passengers, by imposing strict liability for harm suffered. But the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that negligence was the issue, not strict liability.
Concurring specially, Carnes added that publicly available data reinforces the plaintiff's allegations that Royal Caribbean knew or should have known about the dangers of sexual assault on its ships.
Cruise lines have been required to keep records of all complaints of sexual assaults and other serious crimes since 2010, which are given to the FBI and the Department of Transportation, according to the opinion. Carnes noted that the court can take judicial notice of those incident reports.
According to transcripts from oral arguments referenced in the opinion, there were more than 20 sexual assaults on Royal Caribbean's ships between 2010 and 2015, not counting those which were still under investigation. Carnes said those numbers are likely understated, and yet amount to almost one-third of the number reported by all cruise lines.
This information, Carnes wrote, reinforces plaintiff's claims of negligence, particularly since there have been congressional reports on it.
“And it would be absurd to suggest that a multi-billion dollar business like Royal Caribbean was not aware of congressional reports about the problem of sexual assaults aboard its cruise ships,” Carnes wrote.
|'A hidden epidemic'
It's a landmark ruling, according to Winkleman, who said it's the first time an appellate court has set out a clear duty to warn of rapes and sexual assaults on cruise ships, something he and his team have long argued for.
“For years, our firm has been handling rape and assault cases on cruise ships, and we've always described it as a hidden epidemic of what was going on at sea,” Winkleman said.
No criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators, according to Winkleman, who said that was partly because the plaintiff didn't report the assault until months later during a therapy session, and because security staff didn't investigate after finding K.T. passed out in a hallway.
Winkleman said the ruling will likely send a strong message to cruise lines that they must do more to protect passengers.
“I would be shocked that, since the opinion has come out, if [cruise lines] are not already having meetings on how to best deal with this opinion and respond to the opinion,” Winkleman said.
The opinion drew from Royal Caribbean's website, which says passenger safety and security is of highest priority for staff, who are committed to preventing illegal activity and will take action to ensure passenger safety.
“Not if the allegations of the complaint are true,” the opinion said, later adding, “If the allegations of the complaint are true, Royal Caribbean's approach to protecting passengers from being sexually assaulted and raped certainly could be improved. One of the purposes of tort law is to spur along such improvements.”
|Read the court opinion:
|More appeals:
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 AllLitigators of the Week: 3 Former SGs Team Up In a Major Opioid Win for Pharmacies at the Ohio Supreme Court
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Litigators of the Week: The Eighth Circuit Knocks Out a $564M Verdict Against BMO in Ponzi Case
Litigator of the Week: Reversing a $2B Trade Secret Verdict, the Largest in Va. History
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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